LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


Accessions  Nojcj.  Class  No. 


BY   THE   SAME   AUTHOR 

Gospel-Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity— A 
Study  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  History  of  the  Gospel-Canon 
during  the  Second  Century  ;  with  a  Consideration  of  the 
Results  of  Modern  Criticism.  Second  Edition,  8vo,  cloth, 
gilt  top,  pp.  xii.  +  365 $1.75 


THE    GOSPEL 


AND   ITS 


EARLIEST   INTERPRETATIONS 


A   STUDY   OF    THE    TEACHING    OF    JESUS    AND 

ITS   DOCTRINAL   TRANSFORMATIONS 

IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 

ORELLO    CONE,   D.D. 


SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED 


G.  P.   PUTNAM'S   SONS 

NEW   YORK  LONDON 

27   WEST  TWENTY-THIRD   STREET  24    BEDFORD    STREET,  STRAND 

ftfyt  Itmchrrbcelur   Dress 
1894 


3 


COPYRIGHT      1893 

ORELLO  CONE 


Electrotyped,  Printed  and  Bound  by 

Ubc  fmtcherbocfccr  press,  "Hew  H?orh 
G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


PREFACE. 


ATHANASE  COQUEREL'S  little  book  on  The 
First  Historical  Transformations  of  Christianity 
furnished  the  suggestion  of  this  work.  More  than  a 
suggestion,  however,  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  supplied. 
For  while  it  is  conceived  in  accordance  with  a  generally 
correct  insight  into  the  relations  of  the  different  writings 
composing  the  New-Testament  literature,  its  critical 
point  of  view  may  be  regarded  as  now  in  many  respects 
antiquated. 

The  object  of  this  work  is  to  elucidate  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  to  present  both  in  their  relation  to  it  and  to 
one  another  the  principal  types  of  religious  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  New  Testament.  The  pursuit  of  this  object 
has  led  to  a  consideration  of  the  resemblances  and  differ- 
ences which  exist  between  the  word  of  the  Master  and  the 
interpretations  of  it  by  his  followers  who  composed  the 
several  writings  of  that  book.  While  the  classification  of 
the  New-Testament  literature  results  from  critical  pro- 
cesses, it  was  not  consistent  with  the  limits  proposed  to 
enter  upon  a  detailed  discussion  of  them,  and  no  more 
has  been  attempted  in  this  direction  than  to  present  those 
grounds  of  the  classification  adopted  which  are  apparent 
from  an  analysis  of  the  writings. 

Instead  of  undertaking  to  make  a  complete  exposition 

iii 


iv  PREFACE. 

of  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  I  have  endeavored 
to  discuss  only  its  more  important  features  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  present  in  outline  the  principal  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  the  interpretations  and  transformations  which 
they  underwent  in  the  books  composing  the  Christian 
canon.  If  the  result  has  been  to  show  in  these  a  greater 
or  less  departure  from  the  simplicity  and  the  practical, 
humanitarian,  and  religious  interest  of  the  original  gospel  of 
the  great  Teacher  in  the  direction  of  a  theological  specula- 
tion conducted  through  a  combination  with  it  of  the  ideas 
of  the  age  with  which  the  several  writers  were  in  touch, 
there  have  also  been  made  apparent,  it  is  hoped,  the  worth 
and  preeminence  of  that  gospel  in  contrast  with  the  phil- 
osophical interpretations  of  it  by  his  earliest  followers,  and 
its  importance  as  the  basis  of  character,  an  inspiration  to 
right  living,  and  the  only  ground  of  permanent  Christian 
union. 

The  work  has  necessarily  been  grounded  upon  a  critical 
and  exegetical  study  of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  its 
prosecution  assistance  has  been  derived  from  the  com- 
mentators. I  am  also  under  obligations  to  the  scholars 
to  whose  works  reference  has  been  made  in  detail  in  the 
notes,  particularly  to  Pfleiderer,  whose  classification  of 
the  New-Testament  literature  has  been  in  the  main 
adopted,  Wendt,  Weizsacker,  Immer,  and  Baur. 

I  desire  to  express  my  obligations  to  Dr.  C.  H.  Toy  of 
Harvard  University,  who  kindly  read  the  work  in  manu- 
script, for  important  suggestions  which  have  aided  me  in 
its  revision. 

Dr.  C.  C.  Everett's  work  on  The  Gospel  of  Paul  did  not, 
I  regret,  come  to  hand  in  time  for  reference. 

As  I  do  not  pretend  that  my  interpretation  of  the  course 
of  the  development  of  religious  thought  in  the  New  Testa- 


PREFACE.  v 

ment  or  of  individual  passages  is  faultless,  I  shall  be 
thankful  for  any  criticisms  which  are  calculated  to  lead  to 
a  more  complete  understanding  of  the  subject  than  I  may 
have  been  able  to  attain. 

ORELLO  CONE. 

BUCHTEL  COLLEGE, 
March,  1893. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

PAGE 

THE    HISTORICAL  AND  CRITICAL  TREATMENT  OF  THE    NEW 

TESTAMENT I 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 35 

i.  — Doctrinal  Antecedents  and  Environment         .         .  35 

2. — The  Kingdom  of  God    ........  46 

3. — The  Righteousness  of  the  Kingdom  of  God    ....  62 

4. — Conditions  of  Entering  the  Kingdom  of  God           ...  71 

5. — God  as  the  Father 78 

6. — Jesus'  Attitude  toward  the  Old  Testament      ....  84 

7. — Jesus'  Teaching  Regarding  Himself       .....  90 

8. — The  Sayings  of  Jesus  Concerning  His  Death  ....  109 
9. — The  Teaching  of  Jesus  Regarding  the  Life  to  Come       .         .118 

CHAPTER    II. 
THE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPRETATION         .          .          .          .138 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE  PAULINE  TRANSFORMATION 151 

i. — Out  of  Judaism  into  Christianity    ......  153 

2. — The  Point  of  Departure          .......  164 

3.— Sin  and  the  Flesh i?i 


viil  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

4. — Christology    .         .         .         . 181 

5. — Justification  by  Faith     ........     203 

6. — The  Future 216 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS      .          .          .          .232 
I. — The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.          ......     233 

2. — The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 249 

3.— The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 255 

4.— The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 260 

CHAPTER  V. 
THE  JOHANNINE  TRANSFORMATION 267 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS       .          .          ,  .          .318 

i.— The  First  Epistle  of  John 320 

2. — The  Pastoral  Epistles    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     327 

3.— The  Epistle  of  Jude .         .338 

4.— The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter 342 

CHAPTER  VII. 
JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC 34& 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE  GOSPEL  AND  THEOLOGY        ...  ...      362 

INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   .          .        395 
INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 4O7 


THE   GOSPEL 

AND    ITS 

EARLIEST    INTERPRETATIONS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE   HISTORICAL  AND    CRITICAL    TREATMENT    OF    THE" 
NEW     TESTAMENT. 

RELIGION  is  a  product  in  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  which  human  nature  is  so  largely 
participant  that,  like  all  other  human  products,  it  has  a 
history.  Its  history  is  the  record  of  its  formation  and  its 
transformations.  To  designate  religion  as  a  product  is, 
indeed,  to  speak  quite  indefinitely  of  it  and,  perhaps,  to- 
provoke  inquiry  as  to  its  factors.  But  to  enter  upon  this 
inquiry  would  divert  us  from  our  present  purpose,  which 
is  historical.  We  may,  then,  well  leave  the  investigation 
of  the  nature  of  religion  to  anthropology  and  theology, 
while  we  proceed  to  study  in  its  phenomena  that  par- 
ticular form  of  it  which  appears  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  known  as  Christianity.  The  historical  view  of  the 
formation  of  religion  and  of  the  modifications  which  it 
undergoes  in  the  course  of  time  concerns  only  its  mani- 
festations in  life  and  in  literature.  The  antecedent 
influences  which  affect  the  form  or  the  development  of 


2  THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

any  particular  religion  this  view  may,  indeed,  take  into 
account  if  they  lie  in  the  domain  of  history,  regarding 
the  message  which  a  religious  teacher  delivers  in  its  rela- 
tion to  his  environment  and  to  his  predecessors.  But 
these  human  aspects  of  religion  mark  the  limitations  of 
history.  Foreign  to  its  occupation  are  all  speculations 
and  presumptions  regarding  the  superhuman  influences 
which  may  be  supposed  to  have  determined  or  affected 
the  message  of  a  teacher  or  the  lives  of  believers.  Inspira- 
tion may  be  a  fact,  but  it  is  not  a  fact  for  the  historian, 
and  is  not,  indeed,  historically  demonstrable. 

The  historical  study  of  religion  has  been  greatly 
impeded  by  the  dogmatic  interest  in  which  it  has  been 
maintained  that  this  or  that  form  of  religion,  the  form  of 
it  which  each  advocate  regards  as  the  true  religion,  is  final 
and  unchangeable  or  absolute.  Yet  this  position  finds  no 
support  either  in  history  or  in  philosophy.  For  nothing 
is  historically  more  evident  than  that  religion,  like  science, 
art,  institutions  of  society,  government,  and  all  other 
things  finite  and  human,  is  constantly  undergoing  modifi- 
cations in  accordance  with  the  changing  knowledge, 
needs,  and  civilization  which  the  development  of  human 
nature  and  the  general  progress  of  man  bring  about. 
Again,  it  is  clear  that  religion  cannot  in  its  nature  be  fixed, 
and  that  absoluteness  cannot  be  predicated  of  it.  Setting 
aside  as  confusing  and  inadequate  all  definitions  of  reli- 
gion which  deprive  it  of  its  "  theologic  crown,"  l|f  it  is 
manifest  that  whether  we  regard  it  with  Schleiermacher,  as 
consisting  in  "  a  feeling  of  absolute  dependence"  upon  God 
or  in  sentiments  of  love  and  worship  toward  Him,  it  has 
the  qualities  of  relativeness  and  limitation  which  belong 
to  all  conditions  and  expressions  of  human  nature.  The 

*See  Martineau,  A  Stxidy  of  Religion,  etc.,  1888,  vol.  i.,  p.  4. 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  3 

•case  is  not  changed  if  we  view  it  upon  its  reverse  side  as 
"  a  mode  of  thought,"  and  take  account  of  the  knowledge 
real  or  supposed  which  is  implied  in  it  as  the  matter  of 
feeling.  For  whether  we  assume  man  to  acquire  his 
knowledge  of  God  by  the  use  of  his  natural  faculties,  or 
to  become  possessed  of  it  as  a  revelation  through  inspired 
teachers,  this  knowledge  is  conditioned  by  the  limitations 
of  his  nature.  If,  then,  religion  as  a  mode  of  thought 
consists  of  a  knowledge  which  is  relative,  and  as  a  mode 
•of  feeling  is  the  feeling  of  a  relation,  it  is  evident  that 
nothing  can  be  more  irrational  than  to  affirm  absoluteness 
•of  it.  One  might,  perhaps,  assert  without  fear  of  con- 
tradiction that  no  greater  truth  has  been  attained  by  man 
or  revealed  to  him  than,  for  example,  that  fundamental 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  Fatherhood  of  God  ;  but  to 
affirm  this  truth  to  be  final  would  be  to  set  limits  either 
to  human  attainment  or  to  the  revealing  divine  grace. 
Such  an  affirmation  would  be  purely  speculative  and  with- 
out any  ground  either  in  experience  or  reason.  More- 
over, the  relativity  of  our  apprehension  of  this  truth  is 
manifest  from  the  fact  that  we  know  it  only  according  to 
the  analogy  of  a  finite  human  relation,  that  of  parentage. 
Its  indefinite  transformability  appears  when  in  its  com- 
munication it  is  found  to  be  variously  apprehended 
according  to  the  point  of  view  and  the  degree  of  the 
affectional  and  intellectual  development  of  the  recipient. 
Accordingly,  every  thought  concerning  the  Deity  which 
man  thinks,  in  whatever  way  he  may  come  to  think  it, 
.assumes  in  the  first  place  the  complexion  of  his  own 
nature  and  limitations,  and  is  in  the  second  place  subject 
to  unlimited  modifications  as  it  is  apprehended  by  differ- 
ent individuals.  This  is  not  a  presumption,  but  an  in- 
duction from  the  nature  of  man,  from  human  experience, 


4  THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  from  a  scientific  study  of  the  records  and  history  of 
religions.  It  is  also  the  point  of  view  from  which  the 
purely  historical  treatment  of  the  Christian  religion  and 
its  documents  must  proceed. 

A  prepossession  which  has  seriously  hindered  the  prog- 
ress of  an  historical  and  critical  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  that  of  the  unity  of  doctrine  in  all  its  books. 
The  writers  of  the  various  Gospels,  Epistles,  the  Acts, 
and  the  Apocalypse  have  been  assumed  to  have  been  in- 
spired in  the  sense  that  they  were  capable  of  producing 
works  which  are  free  from  error.  This  inerrancy  has  been 
supposed  by  some  to  extend  to  all  the  minutiae  of  words 
and  minor  details,  and  by  others  to  include  only  a  sort  of 
general  accuracy  in  matters  of  fact,  a  correct  reproduction 
of  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  infallibility  in  all  statements 
and  expositions  of  Christian  doctrine.  From  this  point  of 
view  the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  who  are  supposed  to  have 
been  precisely  the  persons  whose  names  are  attached  to 
them,  are  believed  to  have  composed  biographies  of 
Jesus  which  can  not  only  be  brought  into  a  substantial 
harmony  in  all  matters  of  chronology  and  arrangement 
of  material,  but  also  shown  to  present  no  important 
divergences  in  their  apprehension  of  his  teachings. 
Individual  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  words  and  in  style 
are,  indeed,  conceded  ;  but  here  the  line  is  rigidly  drawn, 
and  it  is  regarded  as  but  little  short  of  blasphemy  to  teach 
that  the  evangelists  have  contradicted  one  another  in 
matters  of  fact  on  the  one  hand,  or  on  the  other  have 
presented  widely  divergent  apprehensions  of  the  nature, 
mission,  and  doctrine  of  Jesus.  The  teaching  that  the 
Gospels  contain  legendary  or  mythical  accounts  is  de- 
nounced as  destructive  of  the  historical  credibility  of 
every  other  part  of  them,  and  the  student  is  asked  to 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  5 

reconcile  with  his  reason  and  historical  sense  the  proposi- 
tions that  two  such  representations  of  the  character  and 
teaching  of  Jesus  as  those  of  the  first  and  fourth  Gospels 
can  have  proceeded  from  two  men  who  were  his  original 
disciples,  and  that  they  are  in  substantial  accord  with 
each  other.  According  to  this  theory  there  are  no 
strongly  marked  divergences  of  opinion,  no  oppositions, 
irreconcilable  tendencies,  and  conflicting  interpretations 
of  Christianity  in  the  several  writers  of  the  Epistles,  the 
Acts,  and  the  Apocalypse,  but  all  their  teachings  are  cast 
in  the  same  mould,  and  constitute  in  perfect  harmony 
one  substance  of  doctrine.  Substantially  the  same  view 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  the  mission  of  Christianity 
is  held  to  be  represented  in  Romans  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  Galatians  and  the  Epistle  of  James  are 
accordant  in  the  sense  of  presenting  "  different  sides  "  of 
one  and  the  same  doctrine.  These  conclusions  follow 
legitimately  from  the  premises  which  assume  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  New-Testament  writers  in  matters  of  fact 
and  doctrine,  and  they  have  been  defended  with  a  degree 
of  assumption  and  dogmatism  than  which  the  history  of 
theology  presents  no  more  deplorable  example. 

That  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  constitutes  a 
distinct  department  of  theological  science  in  general,  and 
that  its  object  is  to  ascertain  and  set  forth  the  doctrines 
of  the  several  writers  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  is  a 
proposition  which  better  describes  the  point  of  view  from 
which  most  of  the  treatises  on  the  subject  have  proceeded 
than  the  character  and  results  which  they  have  generally 
exhibited.  In  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Protestantism  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant 
Church  should  be  nothing  else  than  the  exposition  of  the 
teachings  of  Scripture,  the  early  reformers  consistently 


6  THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

founded  their  dogmatics  upon  a  rigid  exegesis  of  biblical 
texts.  This  is  especially  true  of  Melanchthon  and  Calvin, 
the  former  founding  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  his 
Loci  Thcologici,  and  the  latter  proceeding  in  his  Institutio 
Christiana  Religionis  upon  the  assumption  of  the  imme- 
diate relation  of  Scripture  and  dogmatics.  But  it  was 
not  long  until  the  dogmatic  system  gained  the  supremacy, 
and  Scripture  was  subordinated  to  it,  until  texts  from  the 
Bible  were  chiefly  sought  and  prized  for  the  use  to  which 
they  could  be  put  in  fortifying  the  traditional  theology 
and  refuting  its  opponents,  until  exegesis  was  pressed 
altogether  into  the  service  of  dogma,  and  only  that  inter- 
pretation of  biblical  passages  was  recognized  as  valid 
which  squared  with  the  accepted  theological  tenets.  The 
attempts  which  were  made  toward  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  to  effect  a  real  separation  of  Scripture 
from  dogmatics  and  to  consider  the  proof-texts  or  dicta 
probantia  by  themselves,  particularly  in  the  works  of 
Sebastian  Schmidt,  Hiilsemann,  Baier,  and  Weissmann, 
appear  to  have  been  undertaken  in  accordance  with  a 
right  apprehension  of  the  true  nature  of  biblical  theology 
and  of  its  scientific  requirements,  but  the  dogmatic  view 
so  far  prevailed  as  to  effect  an  unhistorical  arrangement 
of  the  proof-texts  and  to  vitiate  the  treatment  of  the 
subject. 

The  opposition  to  the  theological  system  of  the  Church 
in  which  the  spirit  of  the  age  found  expression  toward 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  contributed  in  a  one- 
sided and  superficial  way  to  the  placing  of  biblical 
theology  upon  a  basis  independent  of  dogma,  when 
Bahrdt,  Teller,  and  others  opposed  the  popular  orthodoxy 
by  weapons  drawn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  The 
criticism  of  Semler  and  the  biblical  theology  of  Zacharia 


77V  TROD  UCTION.  7 

also  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  the  scientific 
study  of  the  Bible  in  independence  of  the  dogmatics  of 
the  Church.  The  point  of  view  of  Zacharia's  very  im- 
portant work  may  well  be  commended  to  many  modern 
theologians.  He  would  have  the  student  forget  tempor- 
arily the  system  of  the  Church  and  seek  to  determine  by 
an  independent,  careful  investigation  of  the  entire  Scrip- 
tures the  theological  doctrines  which  they  contain.  The 
theology  thus  derived,  he  remarks,  one  may  rightly -call 
the  real  biblical  theology,  and  one  may  compare  it  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  which  are  declared  to  be 
grounded  in  Scripture,  in  order  to  convince  oneself  of  their 
correctness,  and,  if  they  are  not  so  grounded,  to  have  an 
insight  into  the  actual  biblical  teaching.  One  must,  as  it 
were,  forget  all  the  truth  that  one  has  learned,  in  order  to 
be  unpartisan  enough  to  recognize  and  express  what  the 
holy  Scriptures  teach  without  regard  to  whatever  this  or 
that  party,  this  or  that  divine,  holds  to  be  true  and  right. 
But  with  all  the  fair  promise  of  these  words  the  author 
was  not  able  to  cut  loose  from  dogmatics,  and  his  work 
loses  greatly  in  scientific  value  from  the  attempt  to  insti- 
tute a  criticism  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  which,  he 
assures  his  readers,  far  from  suffering  by  his  fresh  investi- 
gation, will  rather  appear  to  be  set  forth  in  a  new  light. 
There  are  found  intimations  only  of  the  true  historical 
method  of  treating  biblical  theology  in  the  other  writers 
at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  among  whom 
Ammon  and  Storr  are  deserving  of  particular  mention. 
The  former,  for  instance,  rejects  the  ordinary  method  of 
throwing  the  several  writers  of  the  Bible  together,  and 
recommends  a  regard  for  the  peculiarities  of  each  and  for 
the  people  for  whom  and  the  age  for  which  they  wrote.  But 
this  idea  appears  to  have  exerted  little  influence  upon  the 


S  THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

•execution  of  his  work,  and  the  limitations  of  a  dogmatic 
bias  are  evident  in  the  application  of  his  method  for  the 
purpose  of  illustrating  the  progressiveness  of  divine  rev- 
elation. The  distinction  between  dogmatic  and  biblical 
theology  was  clearly  expressed  by  Gabler  to  the  effect 
that  the  former,  so  far  as  it  rests  upon  the  Bible,  has  as 
its  task  to  gather  from  the  biblical  teachings  what  is  uni- 
versally true,  with  the  help  of  philosophy  to  discover 
this  out  of  what  is  merely  local,  temporal,  and  individual, 
and  scientifically  to  establish  and  combine  it.  Biblical 
theology,  on  the  other  hand,  deals  solely  with  the  actual 
ascertaining  of  the  ideas  of  religion  which  are  contained 
in  the  biblical  writings,  and  must  therefore  take  up  the 
merely  local,  temporal,  and  individual,  because  these  are 
most  characteristic  of  the  mode  of  thought  of  a  time  and 
of  particular  persons. 

In  reviewing  the  historical  course  of  the  early  treatment 
of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  difficult  to  classify  every 
writer  whose  works  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  come 
under  consideration  as  representing  one  distinctive  ten- 
dency only.  We  have  already  seen  how  a  writer  sets  out 
with  a  promise  which  he  does  not  keep  ;  and  since  a  promi- 
nent theologian  of  the  first  years  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
G.  Lorenz  Bauer,  begins  as  a  genuine  historical  critic  and 
ends  as  a  rationalist,  occasion  may  be  taken  at  this  point 
to  define  and  illustrate  the  latter  of  these  tendencies  in 
contrast  with  the  former.  Bauer  in  his  work  in  four  vol- 
umes on  the  biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament 
defines  this  science  as  a  development  of  the  theory  of 
religion  held  by  the  Jews  before  Christ  and  by  Jesus  and 
his  apostles,  kept  free  from  all  foreign  ideas,  and  derived 
from  their  writings  according  to  the  different  ages  and  the 
varying  views  and  knowledge  of  the  sacred  writers.  This 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  9 

is  a  tolerably  clear  and  accurate  definition  of  biblical  theol- 
ogy regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  historical  criticism. 
For  the  historical  and  critical  treatment  of  the  biblical 
writings  proceeds  upon  the  presumption  that  they  are 
literature,  and  applies  to  them  the  canons  of  literary  and 
historical  criticism.  It  is  so  far  regardless  of  results  that 
it  does  not  permit  them  to  influence  its  procedure  or 
determine  its  conclusions.  It  is  indifferent  to  the  relation 
which  its  results  may  hold  to  any  doctrines  or  traditions 
however  cherished  and  venerable.  Its  sole  aim  is  to 
ascertain  the  facts.  These  it  leaves  to  the  dogmatic  theo- 
logian who  may  make  of  them  whatever  he  can. 

Now,  in  attempting  to  carry  out  these  principles,  Bauer 
furnishes  an  illustration  of  a  tendency  which  is  as  much 
opposed  to  them,  in  fact,  as  is  the  dogmatism  in  opposition 
to  which  they  have  been  laid  down  and  maintained.  In- 
deed, it  is  only  to  another  sort  of  dogmatism  that  he 
commits  himself  in  adopting  the  method  of  rationalism, 
when  he  turns  aside  from  the  pursuit  of  a  purely  historical 
purpose  to  investigate  and  determine  what  is  a  universally 
valid  truth  and  a  universally  valid  Christianity,  and  when 
he  lays  down  the  principle  that  whatever  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  and  his  apostles  contradicts  the  results  of  experi- 
ence and  the  conclusions  of  sound  reason  is  to  be  regarded 
as  an  accommodation  to  erroneous  popular  ideas.  Of  a  like 
dogmatic  character  was  his  procedure  when  he  sought  by 
means  of  biblical  theology  to  decide  the  great  question 
whether  Christianity  is  a  rational  and  divine  religion.  For 
this  is  not  an  historical  question,  and  in  attempting  to 
answer  it  one  brings  into  the  domain  of  history  one's  own 
subjective  opinion  of  what  is  rational  and  divine,  and 
sets  up  the  purely  dogmatic  presumption  that  wherever 
the  biblical  writers  do  not  agree  with  that  opinion  they 


10          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

accommodate  themselves  to  the  ideas  of  their  time.  This 
principle  is  of  essentially  the  same  dogmatic  character  as 
that  in  opposition  to  which  it  was  laid  down,  for  there  is  no 
essential  difference  in  the  two  affirmations,  that  the  bibli- 
cal writers  were  infallibly  and  verbally  inspired,  and  that 
whatever  they  thought  and  intended  to  express  was  in 
conformity  with  truth  and  reason.  Both  are  a  priori,  both 
imply  a  presumption  which  has  a  tendency  to  determine 
the  results  of  the  historical  and  critical  process,  and  both 
are  accordingly  incompatible  with  this  process.  When 
theologians,  then,  flee  from  the  old  orthodoxy  or  the  new, 
indeed,  to  rationalism,  they  only  escape  from  the  servitude 
of  one  sort  of  dogmatism  to  put  themselves  under  that  of 
another. 

As  to  its  basis  of  rationalism,  it  may  be  characterized  as 
philosophical  in  contradistinction  to  the  principle  and 
method  of  history  and  criticism  applied  to  the  New-Testa- 
ment writings.  Kant's  doctrine  of  moral  interpretation 
expresses  its  essential  idea  in  the  argument  that,  because 
the  moral  betterment  of  man  is  the  object  of  religion,  it 
must  contain  the  supreme  principle  of  biblical  interpre- 
tation. Obviously  no  more  thoroughly  dogmatic  pre- 
sumption than  this  can  be  conceived,  and  Kant  had  the 
frankness  to  admit  that  the  sense  arrived  at  by  this  method 
is  not,  indeed,  to  be  given  out  as  that  had  in  mind  by  the 
author  interpreted  !  This  remarkable  candor  of  the  great 
philosopher  is,  in  fact,  an  admission  that  the  so-called 
moral  interpretation  is  decidedly  no  interpretation  at  all, 
but  consists  simply  in  reading  a  writer  in  the  light  of  what 
one  thinks  he  ought  to  say  for  the  moral  improvement  of 
mankind,  that  is,  in  reading  into  his  writing  one's  own 
preconceived  ideas  of  what  the  moral  betterment  of  man- 
kind is,  and  what  teaching  will  contribute  to  it.  Now,  the 


IN  TROD  UC  TION.  1 1 

rationalistic  method  of  treating  the  New  Testament,  which 
has  played  a  very  important  part  in  the  history  of  theology, 
and  still  thrives  vigorously  in  some  quarters,  has  always 
proceeded  upon  essentially  this  Kantian  principle,  that 
the  biblical  writers  actually  do  teach  or  must  at  all  events 
be  made  to  appear  to  teach  what  is  preconceived  to  be 
true  and  rational.  Since,  then,  according  to  the  presump- 
tion of  rationalism,  the  supernatural  is  not  acceptable  to 
reason,  it  cannot  from  this  point  of  view  be  supposed 
that  the  New-Testament  writers  intended  to  record  ac- 
counts of  miracles,  and  hence  in  recording  what  appear  to 
be  such  they  must  really  have  meant  to  record  something 
else.  Likewise,  since  such  beings  as  Satan  and  demons 
cannot  rationally  be  supposed  to  exist,  and  to  influence  or 
to  possess  men,  the  evangelists  did  not  actually  intend  to 
represent  them  as  existing  and  taking  a  part  in  affairs,  but 
quite  another  meaning  may  and  must  be  put  upon  the 
words  in  the  Gospels  which  appear  literally  to  convey  such 
a  teaching. 

Much  of  the  older  and  the  more  recent  theology 
abounds  in  examples  of  the  application  of  this  rational- 
istic principle.  Since  the  serpent  cannot  be  supposed  to 
have  talked  with  Eve  or  Balaam's  ass  with  his  master,  the 
narratives  of  such  conversations  are  assumed  to  convey 
what  passed  in  the  minds  of  the  persons  concerned.  In 
like  manner  the  appearance  of  Satan  and  the  words 
which  he  is  said,  in  the  first  and  third  Gospels,  to  have 
spoken  to  Jesus  in  the  temptation  are  intended  to  express 
in  a  figure  the  struggle  which  the  latter  underwent  with 
certain  tendencies  in  himself  before  entering  upon  his 
ministry  and  the  considerations  which  prevailed  in  the 
issue.  From  this  point  of  view  the  author  of  the  Acts 
in  recording  the  Pentecostal  phenomena  really  intended 


12          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

to  relate  nothing  which  may  not  be  explained  by  the 
supposition  of  unusual  religious  excitement  and  the 
appearance  of  electric  sparks.  It  is  our  error  if  we  take 
literally  what  was  meant  to  be  understood  as  figurative. 
Assuming  the  unbroken  and  universal  prevalence  of 
natural  law,  rationalism  declared  that  the  biblical  writers 
did  not  intend  that  their  accounts  of  phenomena  which 
appear  to  imply  the  suspension  of  the  usual  order  of 
things  should  be  understood  as  teaching  a  direct  divine 
intervention,  but  that  these  narratives  took  the  form 
which  they  have  from  the  oriental  religious  view  of  the 
world  that  traced  all  natural  events  to  the  immediate 
agency  of  Deity.  Accordingly,  the  story  of  the  descent 
of  Jahveh  in  flames  upon  Mount  Sinai  is  really  only  an 
account  of  a  thunder-storm  ;  it  was  a  stroke  of  lightning 
under  which  Saul  fell  on  the  road  to  Damascus  ;  and  the 
wonderful  deliverance  of  Paul  and  Silas  from  the  prison  at 
Philippi  was  in  fact  nothing  but  the  result  of  an  opportune 
earthquake.  It  is  even  supposed  that  in  those  accounts 
which  contain  no  intimation  of  a  natural  cause  this  has 
been  overlooked  by  the  narrators,  or  they  have  through 
ignorance  taken  for  an  immediate  intervention  of  God 
what  has  in  fact  a  sufficient  explanation  in  accordance 
with  the  regular  order  of  events.  Thus  the  accounts  of 
resurrections  of  the  dead  in  the  New  Testament,  includ- 
ing that  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  are  to  be  interpreted 
as  actually  relating  awakenings  from  a  state  of  suspended 
animation,  and  the  miracle  of  Cana  becomes  a  mere  wed- 
ding-jest, since  Jesus  really  caused  the  jars  to  be  secretly 
filled  with  wine.  Refinements  of  explanation  are  resorted 
to  in  dealing  with  words  by  this  method,  so  that,  for 
example,  Jesus'  walking  on  the  sea  is  made  to  be  a  walk- 
ing on  the  shore  of  the  lake,  and  the  piece  of  money 


IN  TROD  UCTION.  I  3 

which  was  to  be  found  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish  becomes 
the  money  which  was  to  be  received  from  the  sale  of  the 
fish.  Thus  was  the  real  meaning  of  words- distorted,  and 
whole  passages  and  sections  were  made  to  convey  the 
opposite  of  the  sense  intended  by  the  writers  to  such  a 
degree  that  Zeller's  judgment  is  not  too  severe  when  he 
says  that  no  account  of  miracles  was  so  evidently  such 
that  the  rationalistic  interpreters  would  not  transform  it 
into  a  natural  occurrence,  and  no  difficulty  so  great  that 
their  acuteness  could  not  overcome  it.  *  For  violent 
exegesis,  sophisms,  and  unlimited  torture  of  texts,  the 
rationalistic  dogmatism  may  well  dispute  the  palm  with 
its  opponent,  the  orthodox  supernaturalism.  Rationalism 
has,  indeed,  rendered  an  important  service  to  theology  as 
a  method  of  transition.  More  than  a  method  of  transi- 
tion, however,  it  cannot  be  regarded  ;  and  as  a  theological 
point  of  view  it  may  be  characterized  as  a  halting-place 
in  the  progress  from  the  old  orthodoxy  to  the  historical 
and  critical  treatment  of  the  Bible. 

Rationalism  appears  to  have  laid  a  spell  upon  the 
human  mind,  and  its  influence  has  been  overcome  with 
difficulty.  The  historical  method  has,  however,  made 
slow  but  sure  progress.  The  important  works  on  biblical 
theology,  by  Kaiser  and  De  Wette,  both  published  in  the 
same  year,  1813,  contributed  not  a  little  to  this  progress, 
although  neither  of  them  furnishes  an  example  of  the 
purely  historical  and  critical  treatment  of  the  Bible.  The 
former,  in  attempting  to  consider  the  extra-biblical 
religions  in  connection  with  the  biblical  and  to  discover 
the  principle  of  the  ideally  true  religion,  vitiated  the 
historical  procedure  by  introducing  a  subjective  standard 

*Die  Tiibinger  historische  Schule,  Vortage  und  Abhandlungen 
geschichtlichen  Inhalts,  1865,  p.  272. 


14          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  the  universally  true  and  valid.  To  the  latter  belongs 
the  merit  of  treating  biblical  theology  not  according  to 
the  different  writers,  but  according  to  the  characteris- 
tically different  periods.  But  in  attempting  philosophi- 
cally to  distinguish  the  essential  from  the  unessential  in 
religion,  he  subordinated  the  purely  historical  to  the 
religious  and  dogmatic  interest,  and  placed  himself  upon 
rationalistic  ground.  The  works  on  biblical  theology  by 
Baumgarten-Crusius  and  Von  Colin,  issued  in  1828  and 
1836  respectively,  mark  no  important  departure  from  the 
methods  and  points  of  view  already  considered.  The 
former  occupies  essentially  the  ground  of  traditional 
orthodoxy  in  the  attempt  to  set  forth  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  as  a  connected  whole  without  distinction  of  the  two 
Testaments,  and  in  ignoring  all  differences  of  doctrine 
among  the  apostles  and  between  them  and  the  original 
teaching  of  Jesus.  The  latter  undertook  to  furnish  a 
treatment  of  biblical  theology  from  the  purely  historical 
point  of  view,  and  to  carry  it  out  in  all  its  strictness  and 
purity  in  distinction  from  the  false  endeavor  after  a  prac- 
tical and  popular  method  of  treatment  and  the  incorrect 
idea  of  the  relation  of  biblical  theology  to  the  theological 
system,  to  the  universal  history  of  religion,  and  to  the 
philosophy  of  religion.  But  in  the  execution  of  the  work 
the  attempt  to  distinguish  between  the  symbolical  and 
the  unsymbolical  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles 
introduced  an  arbitrary  and  indeterminable  principle 
whose  application  could  not  but  be  unfavorable  to  the 
purely  historical  method. 

At  this  point  the  criticism  and  the  theology  of  the  New 
Testament  received  from  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus  and  the 
discussions  which  it  called  forth  an  impulse  which  exerted 
a  most  important  influence  upon  their  development.  Two 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

vital  questions  received  such  a  treatment  in  the  criticism 
of  Strauss  that  they  became  and  have  remained  for  half  a 
century  central  points  of  theological  controversy.  These 
are  the  question  of  the  miraculous  in  the  Gospel-history 
and  that  of  the  credibility  of  this  history  in  view  of  the 
relation  of  the  various  narratives  to  one  another.  Strauss 
took  his  position,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the  ground  that 
the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  must  proceed,  like 
that  of  all  other  writings,  in  entire  freedom  from  presump- 
tions. Its  task  being  to  ascertain  the  historical  facts  from 
the  reports  before  it,  it  must  treat  these  reports  according 
to  the  general  canons  of  historical  and  critical  investiga- 
tion. It  was  his  opinion  that,  since  the  indissoluble  con- 
nection of  natural  causes  and  effects  is  found  to  exist  in 
every  other  department  of  human  history  and  affairs,  it  is 
an  unallowable  presumption  that  it  did  not  hold  in  the 
domain  of  biblical  history.  He  maintained  that  those 
traits  which  in  all  other  ancient  documents  we  recognize 
as  certain  signs  of  an  unhistorical  character  cannot  be 
assumed  to  give  a  superior  historical  quality  to  various 
narratives  in  the  Gospels.  The  question,  then,  regarding 
the  credibility  of  a  narrative  of  a  miracle  resolves  itself, 
from  the  historical  as  opposed  to  the  dogmatic  point  of 
view,  into  the  question :  Which  is  the  more  probable, 
that  something  really  happened  here  which  contradicts  the 
analogy  of  our  whole  experience,  or  that  the  tradition 
which  has  handed  down  the  report  of  such  an  event  is 
false?  Now,  in  our  experience  there  are  numberless 
examples  of  inaccurate  observation,  untrustworthy  tradi- 
tion, intentional  or  unintentional  fabrication,  and  in 
general  of  incorrect  reporting,  while  there  is  not  a  single 
example  of  an  authenticated  miracle,  that  is,  of  a  result 
which  did  not  demonstrably  follow  from  the  natural  con- 


1 6          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

nection  of  things.  Accordingly,  from  Strauss'  historical 
point  of  view,  the  foregoing  question  contains  its  own 
answer. 

As  to  the  question  of  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel- 
narratives  in  view  of  the  relation  which  they  hold  to  one 
another  in  the  matters  of  agreement,  chronological  arrange- 
ment, apprehension  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  etc., 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  results  of  the  greatest  importance 
for  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  have  come  from 
Strauss'  work  and  the  numerous  writings  which  it  called 
forth.  It  was  believed  by  all  who  at  first  engaged  in  the 
contest  that  the  criticism  of  Strauss  could  only  be  over- 
come by  establishing  the  apostolical  origin,  and  accord- 
ingly, as  was  supposed,  the  entire  credibility  of  the  four 
Gospels.  This  task  proved  to  be  much  more  difficult  than 
was  supposed.  Neither  the  traces  of  a  later  origin  which 
they  show  in  themselves,  nor  the  striking  differences  which 
appear  in  them  when  they  are  compared  with  one  another, 
particularly  in  regard  to  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the 
relation  of  Judaism  and  Christianity,  could  with  all  the 
exegetical  art  which  was  applied  be  removed  from  the 
Gospels ;  and  that  school  of  criticism  is  now  regarded  as 
conservative  which  constructs  the  Gospel-history  upon  the 
priority  of  Mark,  and  derives  Luke  and  our  Greek  first 
Gospel  from  this  and  a  collection  of  sayings  or  logia  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  in  Aramaic  by  Matthew,  while 
the  fourth  Gospel  has  been  so  much  disputed  as  an  apos- 
tolical writing  that  its  legitimate  use  as  an  original  source 
for  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  open  to  the  gravest  question.* 

*  A  good  illustration  of  the  influence  which  the  discussion  of  the  origin  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  has  had  upon  conservative  scholars  is  shown  in  Wendt's 
ingenious  but  artificial  eclectic  treatment  of  the  discourses  contained  in  it 
for  a  construction  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.,  1890. 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  1 7 

Whoever,  then,  would  at  the  present  time  write  a  life  of 
Jesus  or  an  account  of  his  teachings  must  give  heed  to  the 
fact  that  the  existence  of  any  immediately  apostolical 
source  is  in  a  high  degree  questionable. 

This  condition  to  which  criticism  has  brought  the  study 
of  the  Gospels  has  a  most  important  bearing  upon  any 
treatment  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  Since  we 
can  know  his  doctrine  only  mediately,  that  is,  through  the 
statements  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  Gospels,  it  is  evidently  of  no  slight  import- 
ance whether  the  authors  of  the  writings  which  must  be 
depended  upon  for  information  were  eye-witnesses,  that 
is,  whether  their  relation  to  the  events  and  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  was  such  that  they  were  able  in  writing  of  them  to 
produce  histories  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  or 
whether  they  were  so  far  separated  from  the  time  of  which 
they  wrote  that  a  considerable  modification  of  their  material 
must  be  supposed  on  its  way  to  them  through  the  channels 
of  tradition.  This  consideration  is  of  great  importance,  not 
because  if  the  latter  alternative  be  taken  there  remains  no 
trustworthy  source  of  information  as  to  the  general  charac- 
ter of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  even  as  to  the  principal 
and  essential  particulars  of  it.  But  it  is  evident  that  the 
acceptance  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  alternatives  must 
greatly  affect  the  method  of  treating  the  subject  and  the 
nature  of  many  of  the  results  arrived  at.  If,  for  example, 
one  does  not  regard  the  evangelists  as  simple  reporters  of 
the  words  of  Jesus  one  will  avoid  the  violent  exegesis  of 
the  old  harmonists  in  treating  passages  which,  while  seem- 
ing to  be  parallel,  differ  widely  in  the  relation  of  time  and 
the  connection  of  thought.  From  this  point  of  view  also 
the  treatment  of  the  Gospels  cannot  but  become  less  dog- 
matic and  mechanical,  and  give  more  room  to  what  is 


1 8          THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

called  critical  divination,  or  the  insight  of  historical  criti- 
cism, than  is  possible  by  the  old  method  of  studying  them. 
This  critical  insight  or  divination,  which  in  the  first  place 
is  a  faculty,  and  in  the  second  place  is  cultivated  by  trans- 
porting oneself  into  the  environment  of  an  ancient  writer 
and  making  it  in  a  sense  one's  own,  has  produced  the  most 
satisfactory  results  in  the  study  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
classics,  and  in  view  of  the  conclusions  of  criticism  is  the 
means  which  must  now  be  chiefly  resorted  to  for  the  eluci- 
dation of  those  Christian  classics  which  the  Gospels  are, 
since,  indeed,  they  have  now  come  to  be  regarded  as 
literature. 

If,  then,  with  all  the  reactions  since  the  time  of  Strauss 
the  tendency  of  the  critical  study  of  the  Gospels  has  stead- 
ily set  against  the  method  of  treating  even  the  synoptics 
as  writings  cast  in  the  same  mould  and  in  most  respects 
accordant,  in  a  much  greater  degree  has  the  difference  be- 
tween these  and  the  fourth  Gospel  been  accentuated.  The 
latter  has,  in  fact,  come  to  be  very  widely  regarded  as 
containing  a  unique  type  of  the  conceptions  of  Jesus  and 
his  mission  which  were  formed  during  the  first  century 
after  his  death.  The  necessity  has  been  forced  upon  stu- 
dents of  the  Gospels  of  deciding  between  the  first  three  and 
the  last  in  seeking  for  the  historical  source  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus.  The  decision  which  has  so  often  been 
made  to  the  prejudice  of  the  synoptics  seems  now  likely 
to  turn  against  the  fourth  Gospel  as  a  writing  of  a  marked 
theological  and  ideal  tendency.  The  more  this  is  done, 
however,  the  more  is  stress  laid  upon  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  synoptics  as  writings  in  whose  common  tra- 
dition has  been  preserved  the  kernel  of  the  most  that  can 
be  really  known  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  the  Nazarene. 

It  was  from  this  point  of  view  that  the  relation  of   the 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

synoptics  and  the  fourth  Gospel  was  regraded  by  F.  C. 
Baur,  the  founder  of  the  Tubingen  historical  school, 
whose  thorough  and  acute  criticism  of  the  latter  Gos- 
pel marks  an  era  in  the  study  of  the  New  Testament. 
While  the  publication  of  Baur's  principal  writings  was 
subsequent  to  that  of  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  the  former 
was  in  no  sense  a  follower  of  the  latter.  The  underlying 
principles  and  aims  of  the  two  men  were  fundamentally 
different.  The  criticism  of  Strauss  was  both  negative  and 
inadequate.  It  was  negative  in  tending  to  overthrow  the 
historical  credibility  of  the  Gospels,  and  inadequate  in 
that,  while  it  sought  to  establish  the  mythical  theory  as  an 
explanation  of  certain  portions  of  the  Gospels,  it  left  other 
very  important  parts  of  them  unexplained  ;  since  the 
myth,  as  legend  unintentionally  formed,  does  not  account 
for  those  features  of  these  narratives  which  are  marked  by 
a  decided  intention  and  dogmatic  interest,  and,  far  from 
being,  like  the  myth,  common  to  all,  are  in  various  forms 
peculiar  to  one  and  another.  The  criticism  of  Strauss 
proceeded  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view,  and  was 
rather  a  criticism  of  the  Gospels  than  of  their  history. 
In  his  zeal  to  remove  from  the  Gospels  all  unhistorical 
-constituents  he  failed  to  construct,  or  to  indicate  how 
there  might  be  constructed,  a  positive  historical  portrait 
of  Jesus.  Baur's  procedure  was  essentially  different  from 
this,  and  perhaps  might  be  said  to  Have  been  opposed  to 
it.  He  did  not  begin  his  investigations  with  a  criticism  of 
the  Gospels,  but  with  a  study  of  their  history,  that  is,  of 
the  conditions  out  of  which  they  sprang.  His  point  of 
view  was  that,  if  our  Gospels  are  not  simple  historical  nar- 
ratives, if  rather  religious  interest  and  dogmatic  reflexion 
had  an  important  part  in  their  origin,  they  are,  neverthe- 
less, documents  which  show  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Church 


20          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  the  views  and  interests  which  existed  in  it.  Important 
information  in  regard  to  these  various  views  and  interests 
may  be  obtained  from  other  witnesses  in  part  older  and 
more  immediate  than  the  Gospels  themselves,  that  is, 
in  the  other  New-Testament  writings,  in  the  statements 
of  early  writers  of  the  Church,  and  in  the  extra-canonical 
remains  of  the  ancient  Christian  literature.  Now,  if  with 
these  aids  we  attempt  to  form  the  most  accurate  possible 
view  of  the  Christian  Church  of  the  first  centuries,  of  the 
oppositions  and  parties  contained  in  it,  and  of  the  entire 
internal  development  of  original  Christianity,  we  shall  not 
only  have  gone  far  beyond  the  Gospel-criticism  of  Strauss 
with  reference  to  its  extent,  but  we  shall  have  supple- 
mented its  negative  results  by  results  which  are  historical 
and  positive.  Besides,  we  may  hope  in  this  way  to  obtain 
a  clearer  insight  into  the  life  and  teachings  of  the  Founder 
of  Christianity. 

Baur,  accordingly,  in  seeking  for  a  tenable  ground  of 
further  historical  combinations,  began  with  a  study  of 
those  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  appeared  to 
him  as  the  oldest  documents  of  original  Christianity  to  be 
best  adapted  to  this  purpose,  the  genuine  Pauline  Epistles,, 
that  to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  and  that 
to  the  Galatians.  He  drew  from  these  the  conclusion  that 
the  ordinary  view  of  the  apostolic  age  was  incorrect,  which 
regarded  it  as  a  period  of  harmony  and  unbroken  peace. 
In  expressions  of  Paul  himself  and  by  means  of  inferences 
from  historical  notices  of  the  later  Ebionites  and  from  the 
pseudo-Clementine  literature  he  found  evidences  of  the 
oppositions  and  strifes  in  which  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
was  engaged  with  the  Jewish-Christian  party  and  even 
with  the  original  apostles  themselves.  It  was  from  this 
point  of  view  that  Baur's  study  of  the  Gospels  proceeded. 


INTRODUCTION.  .          21 

These  he  regarded  as  historical  products  of  their  age, 
based  upon  tradition  and  antecedent  writings,  and  com- 
posed in  the  interest  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  one  or 
the  other  side  of  the  contest  over  the  Pauline  apprehen- 
sion of  Christianity,  or,  in  general,  in  the  interest  of  a 
theory  of  Jesus  and  his  mission  which  chanced  to  be  the 
favorite  one  of  the  author  or  editor  of  each.  This  predi- 
lection of  the  writers  he  called  a  "  tendency,"  and  hence 
"  tendency-writings  "  became  in  the  Tubingen  school  of 
criticism  a  standard  term  descriptive  of  the  Gospels.  A 
single  exception  was  made  in  this  respect  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  which  was  regarded  as  a  neutral,  colorless  writing 
composed  from  the  first  and  third  Gospels.  The  relation 
of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  then,  to  the  facts  of  the  Gospel- 
history  being  mediate,  these  cannot  have,  in  Baur's  opinion, 
the  full  importance  of  an  authentic  source  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  Its  actual  contents  can,  in  fact,  be  deter- 
mined through  them  only  approximately,  since  the  sub- 
jectivity of  the  writers  is  a  factor  always  to  be  taken  into 
the  account.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  writers 
of  the  four  Gospels  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  mere  re- 
porters, their  writings  have  no  little  importance  as  sources 
of  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  For  in  each  of  the  Gospels  the 
consciousness  of  the  time  to  which  it  belongs  is  represented 
in  a  new  and  peculiar  form,  and  the  farther  we  must  sep- 
arate them  according  to  the  difference  of  the  time  of  their 
origin  and  the  individuality  of  their  authors,  the  more 
important  documents  do  they  become  for  the  history  of 
the  development  of  New-Testament  theology.* 

The  historical  method  of  studying  the  New  Testament 
reaches  its  culmination  in  the  principles  and  processes  of 
the  Tubingen  school.  The  requirement  that  the  various 

*Baur,  Vorlesungen  tiber  neutestamentliche  Theologie  1864,  p.  24. 


22          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

writings  which  compose  it  shall  be  investigated  with 
reference  to  the  conditions  and  influences  in  the  midst  of 
which  they  originated,  and  studied  independently  of  all 
dogmatic  prepossessions,  is  rigidly  observed.  The  con- 
tention that  in  sacred  history  laws  and  principles  should 
be  accepted  as  valid  which  are  not  recognized  in  other 
history  is  not  admitted.  "  Christianity,"  says  Baur,  "  is 
an  historical  phenomenon,  and  as  such  it  must  submit  to 
be  historically  considered  and  investigated."  *  When  he 
is  charged  with  the  design  of  placing  Christianity  in  an 
historical  connection  in  which  all  that  is  supernatural  and 
miraculous  in  it  would  become  a  vanishing  moment,  he 
answers :  "  This  is  certainly  the  tendency  of  the  historical 
method  of  treatment,  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  it 
can  have  no  other.  Its  task  is  to  investigate  whatever 
happens  under  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect ;  but  the 
miracle  in  its  absolute  sense  dissolves  this  natural  con- 
nection ;  it  sets  a  point  at  which  it  is  impossible,  not  for 
want  of  satisfactory  information,  but  altogether  and  ab- 
solutely impossible,  to  regard  the  one  thing  as  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  other.  But  how  were  such  a  point 
demonstrable?  Only  by  means  of  history.  Yet  from 
the  historical  point  of  view  it  were  a  mere  begging  of  the 
question  to  assume  events  to  have  happened  in  a  way 
contrary  to  all  the  analogy  of  history.  We  should  no 
longer  be  dealing  with  an  historical  question,  as  that 
concerning  the  origin  of  Christianity  incontestably  is,  but 
with  a  purely  dogmatic  one,  that  of  the  conception  of  a 
miracle,  [that  is]  whether  contrary  to  all  historical  analogy 
it  is  an  absolute  requirement  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness to  regard  particular  facts  as  miracles  in  the  absolute 
sense."  It  were  certainly  an  error  to  regard  this  attitude 

*Die  Tubinger  Schule,  1859,  p.  13. 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

of  the  founder  of  the  Tubingen  school  as  identical  with 
that  of  the  rationalists  who  rejected  the  miraculous  "  in 
the  absolute  sense  "  on  purely  a-priori  grounds,  and  then 
proceeded  to  apply  a  violent  and  artificial  exegesis  to  the 
Gospels.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  not  from  a  philosophical 
but  from  an  historical  point  of  view  that  he  approaches 
the  subject.  It  is  not,  indeed,  unusual  from  the  apolo- 
getic side  to  urge  that  those  who  thus  deal  with  the 
miraculous  are  equally  with  the  dogmatist  and  the  ration- 
alist under  the  influence  of  a  presumption,  that  is,  of  a 
presumption  against  the  supernatural.  This  view  is,  how- 
ever, in  the  highest  degree  illogical.  For  it  is  not  at  all  a 
presumption  from  which  the  historical  critic  takes  his 
departure,  but  precisely  and  only  an  induction.  From 
historical  phenomena  in  general,  from  human  affairs  and 
experience,  the  induction  is  derived  that  events  happen 
under  the  relation  of  natural  causes  and  effects.  The 
historian  proceeds,  and  must  proceed,  to  judge  them 
accordingly,  so  long  as  the  phenomena  before  him  admit 
of  an  explanation  by  this  principle.  That  myths  and 
legends  grounded  upon  the  supernatural  which  are  found 
in  the  prehistorical1  records  of  ancient  peoples  are  to  be 
regarded  as  history,  and  that  it  is  to  be  taken  for  a  fact 
that  Jove  or  Jahveh  at  any  time  interfered  to  turn  the 
scale  of  battle,  he  would  hold  to  be  most  illogical  and 
unscientific  presumptions.  To  enter  upon  a  philosophi- 
cal discussion  of  the  supernatural  would  be  foreign  to  his 
purpose,  and  there  remains  nothing  for  him  to  do  but  to 
proceed  upon  the  accepted  scientific  inductions  which  lie 
at  the  basis  of  the  science  of  history. 

The  keen  and  thorough  discussion  to  which  the  theories 
and  conclusions  of  the  Tubingen  critics  have  been  sub- 
jected for  more  than  half  a  century  has  no  doubt  shown 


24          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

that  they  were  in  many  respects  one-sided  and  over- 
wrought. The  historical  view  of  the  schism  in  the  early 
Church  which  they  maintained  has  not  been  supported 
in  its  full  extent,  their  doctrine  of  "  tendency  "  in  the 
Gospels  has  been  considerably  modified,  and  their 
opinions  regarding  the  date  of  the  Gospels  and  some 
matters  touching  the  history  of  the  canon  have  not,  indeed, 
altogether  been  sustained.  But  it  cannot  be  disputed 
that  Baur's  general  historical  view  of  primitive  Christianity 
has  exerted  a  far-reaching  and  permanent  influence.  The 
different  and  even  conflicting  points  of  view  of  the  New- 
Testament  writers  can  no  longer  be  denied,  and  "  ten- 
dency "  is  a  term  which  is  likely  to  be  always  recognized 
in  Gospel-criticism.  The  opinions  of  scholars  regarding 
the  fourth  Gospel  have  been  so  much  modified  that  it  can 
no  longer  be  looked  upon  by  the  learned  as  the  favorite 
and  most  trustworthy  source  for  the  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus.  By  those  who  feel  the  influence  and  appreciate 
the  spirit  of  the  higher  criticism  it  is  not  now  regarded 
with  the  enthusiastic,  sentimental  devotion  which  was 
rendered  to  it  by  Schleiermacher  and  Neander.  As  to 
the  strictly  historical  method  of  treating  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  Baur  contributed  more  than  any  one  else  to 
establish  and  make  prevail,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it 
has  taken  a  permanent  place  in  biblical  criticism,  and  has 
practically  driven  from  the  field  both  the  traditional  and 
the  rationalistic  dogmatism.  The  ghost  of  the  old  har- 
monizing method  still,  indeed,  haunts  the  domain  of 
theology,  but  wherever  criticism  prevails  there  prevails 
the  principle  that  each  biblical  writer  is  to  be  studied  with 
reference  to  his  age,  his  environment,  and  the  questions 
which  can  be  historically  shown  to  have  been  mooted  in 
.his  time.  That  the  New-Testament  writings  are  to  be 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  2  5 

regarded  as  literature ;  that  they  have  an  historical  set- 
ting ;  that  they  are  amenable  to  the  principles  of  literary 
criticism ;  that  whatever  spiritual  truths  they  may  con- 
tain, they  are  human  productions,  and  must  be  judged  as 
such ;  and  that  they  are  to  be  studied  in  accordance  with 
methods  established  by  inductions  from  history  and 
experience — this  is  the  incontestable  point  of  view  from 
which  scholarship  now  proceeds  in  the  investigation  of 
all  the  literary  remains  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church, 
whether  they  are  canonical  or  uncanonical. 

The  opposition  to  the  Tubingen  school  has  been 
directed  more  against  some  of  the  results  of  its  criti- 
cism than  against  the  method  itself.  The  denial  of  the 
genuineness  of  all  but  four  of  the  Epistles  ascribed  to 
Paul  and  the  relegation  to  the  post-apostolic  age  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  New-Testament  writings  could  not 
but  be  vehemently  contested.  But  the  method  is  of 
greater  importance  than  particular  results  of  its  applica- 
tion ;  and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  after  the  smoke 
of  the  first  contests  cleared  away  it  became  apparent  that 
just  this  method  and  no  other  was  prevalent  and  likely  to 
be  permanent.  Although  opposing  conclusions  have  been 
reached  by  those  who  have  employed  it,  and  bias  and 
prejudice  have  not  been  absent  in  its  application,  it  has 
come  to  pass  that  no  work  on  biblical  theology  of  great 
importance  and  influence  has  recently  been  written  in 
which  it  has  not  been  followed  with  more  or  less  rigidity 
and  consistency.  It  is  only  necessary  for  confirmation  of 
this  statement  to  glance  at  the  divisions  of  such  works  as 
those  of  Reuss  *  and  Weiss.f  The  former  is  composed  of 

*  La  Theologie  chretienne  au  Siecle  apostolique,  third  edition,  1864. 
f  Lehrbuch  der  biblischen  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  3te  Ausg., 
1879. 


26          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  following  books:  i.  Judaism;  2.  The  Gospel;  3. 
The  Apostolic  Church  ;  4.  The  Jewish-Christian  The- 
ology ;  5.  The  Pauline  Theology  ;  6.  The  Theology  of 
Transition  ;  7.  The  Johannine  Theology.  The  latter,  fol- 
lowing not  less  strictly  the  historical  method,  divides  his 
material  into  :  The  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  The  Original  Apos- 
tolic Type  of  Doctrine  ;  Paulinism  ;  The  Apostolic  Doc- 
trine of  the  post-Pauline  Age  ;  and  finally,  The  Johannine 
Theology.  These  books,  while  written  by  men  who  by 
no  means  accept  the  conclusions  of  the  Tubingen  school, 
mark  a  decided  advance  upon  the  old  apologetic  method  of 
treating  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament.  Though 
pursuing  a  different  aim  and  governed  by  a  different  ten- 
dency from  these,  Hausrath  *  and  Pfleiderer  f  furnish  fine 
exemplifications  of  the  same  method,  and  the  New-Testa- 
ment Theology  of  Immer  \  is  deserving  of  especial  men- 
tion in  this  connection. 

Instead  of  entering  upon  a  further  consideration  of  the 
works  on  the  New  Testament  which  illustrate  the  histori- 
cal method,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  best  to  give  a  little  space 
to  the  answering  of  objections  to  it  which  many  readers 
may  be  supposed  to  entertain.  If  it  be  objected  that 
this  method  has  a  tendency  to  subvert  the  traditional 
faith  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  inspired  and  infallible  word 
of  God,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  criticism  is 
once  admitted  as  a  legitimate  means  of  ascertaining  the 
nature,  date,  authorship,  and  true  interpretation  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible,  it  must  be  allowed  to  take  its  natural 
course.  If  the  conclusions  which  it  reaches  are  unfavor- 
able to  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  Scripture,  then 

*  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte  (in  three  volumes),  1868-1873. 
f  Das  Urchristenthum,  seine  Schriften  und  Lehre,  etc.,  1887. 
\  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  1877. 


INTRODUCTION.  2/ 

the  objector  may  well  ask  himself  on  what  grounds  that 
doctrine  rests,  and  whether  it  can  be  logically  and  securely 
established  by  any  other  process  than  this  same  critical 
and  historical  one  to  which  he  is  opposed.  It  would 
result  that  his  objection  was  not  so  much  to  the  method 
as  to  its  conclusions,  and  he  would  be  in  the  position  of 
an  advocate  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  who  should  have 
objected  to  astronomy  because  the  study  of  it  resulted 
in  establishing  the  Copernican  system. 

No  little  prejudice  exists  against  the  historical  and 
critical  method  as  applied  especially  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment because  it  often  results  in  the  conclusion  that  some 
of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  were  not  written  by  the  men  to 
whom  they  have  been  traditionally  ascribed.  This  result 
is,  however,  shocking  rather  to  the  sentiments  of  men 
than  to  their  intelligence.  For  if  one  will  fairly  consider 
the  facts  in  the  case  one  cannot  but  see  that  there  is  very 
little  evidence  of  any  sort,  and  none  that  can  be  called 
immediate,  for  the  authorship  of  many  of  these  writings. 
Of  traditional  evidence  there  is,  indeed,  abundance,  of 
contemporary  evidence  there  is  none  for  the  authorship 
of  the  Gospels.  But  experience  in  historical  investigation 
soon  teaches  us  to  receive  the  testimony  of  tradition  with 
great  caution.  Precisely  what,  then,  in  brief,  are  the  facts  ? 
The  earliest  traditional  testimony  to  the  authorship  of 
our  first  Gospel,  for  example,  dates  from  a  period  about 
seventy  years  after  its  supposed  composition,  does  not 
relate  to  the  existing  Greek  recension  of  it  at  all,  and 
runs  to  the  effect  that  Matthew  wrote  the  sayings  (Xoyia} 
of  Jesus  in  Hebrew.  Traditionally,  then,  Matthew  is 
connected  with  the  composition  of  a  writing  which  prob- 
ably furnished  the  basis  of  our  first  Gospel.  When  the 
Greek  first  Gospel  was  composed,  by  whom,  how  it  stands 


28          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

related  to  this  original  Hebrew  work  ascribed  to  the  apos- 
tle, how  much  of  the  latter  was  included  in  it,  how  much 
other  material  and  from  what  sources  derived  was  em- 
ployed by  the  Greek  writer  of  it — of  these  things  our 
informant,  Papias,  tells  us  nothing,  perhaps  knew  nothing. 
He  does  not  even  mention  the  Greek  Matthew,  and  the 
first  knowledge  that  we  have  of  its  existence  dates  from 
Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
and  he  gives  no  information  as  to  its  authorship.  As  to 
the  other  supposed  apostolical  Gospel,  the  fourth,  there  is 
a  trace,  much  disputed,  however,  of  its  existence  in  Justin 
Martyr,  but  not  until  near  the  end  of  the  second  century 
do  we  find  any  one  ascribing  it  to  John.  Papias,  who  is 
said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  John,  does  not  appear  to 
have  known  of  its  existence.  It  must  be  conceded  by 
every  unbiassed  mind  that  such  data  are  altogether 
inadequate  to  establish  the  genuineness  of  the  writings  in 
question,  which  are  here  taken  as  examples  in  this  respect 
of  a  considerable  number  of  the  New-Testament  books. 
There  are  certain  things  very  necessary  to  be  known 
about  this  testimony  before  we  can  put  much  reliance 
upon  it,  which  we  cannot  find  out,  for  example,  what  the 
nature  of  the  information  was  which  those  early  writers 
had  who  ascribe  a  book  to  a  particular  author,  whether 
they  had  trustworthy  evidence,  or  followed  a  current 
tradition  without  examination.  In  all  that  they  say  on 
this  subject  there  is  no  indication  that  they  made  a  criti- 
cal examination  of  the  genuineness  of  any  of  the  books 
in  question.  They  either  accept  tradition  or  give  fantastic 
reasons  for  their  belief.  It  is,  accordingly,  a  significant 
fact  that  the  most  trustworthy  information  that  we  have 
regarding  the  origin  of  the  greater  part  of  the  New-Testa- 
ment books  is  not  to  be  credited  to  the  Christian  writers 


INTRODUCTION.  2$ 

who  lived  from  sixty  to  one  hundred  years  after  they  were 
written,  but  to  the  historical  criticism,  so  much  suspected 
in  some  quarters,  which  took  its  rise  some  seventeen 
hundred  years  later. 

That  no  earnest  attention  was  given  in  the  early  Church, 
that  is,  for  about  a  century  after  the  composition  of  the 
oldest  of  our  synoptic  Gospels,  to  what  we  now  call  the 
canonicity  of  a  New-Testament  writing,  is  a  fact  incon- 
testably  established  by  history.  The  writers  of  this 
period  do  not  appear  to  have  concerned  themselves  greatly 
about  the  authorship  of  a  book,  provided  only  that  the 
book  served  their  purpose.  Along  with  our  Gospels  or 
instead  of  them  were  used  others  which  often  deviated 
from  them.  The  Jewish  Christians  and  the  Gnostic 
Christians  used  different  Gospels,  and  neither  party 
recognized  those  of  the  other.  Justin  Martyr  along 
with  our  first  and  third  Gospels  used  another  containing 
matter  different  from  anything  which  is  found  in  our  ca- 
nonical Gospels  ;  and  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  second  and 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century  writings  of  trifling 
importance,  more  distinguished  for  their  weakness  and 
puerility  than  for  any  qualities  of  worth,  were  treated 
with  great  consideration,  and  even  thought  to  be  inspired, 
by  eminent  leaders  in  the  Church.  These  facts  show  very 
clearly  how  much  importance  is  to  be  attached  to  the 
opinions  of  the  so-called  witnesses  of  the  early  Church 
as  to  the  genuineness  of  New-Testament  books,  and 
furnish  a  complete  justification,  if,  indeed,  any  justifica- 
tion were  required,  of  the  rigid  application  of  historical 
criticism  in  order  to  ascertain  whatever  can  be  known 
regarding  their  origin. 

Again,  if  it  be  objected  to  the  historical  and  critical 
method  of  studying  the  New  Testament  and  its  times 


30          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

that  its  conclusions  show  some  writings  to  have  been 
falsely  ascribed  to  men  who  had  no  part  in  their  com- 
position, it  should  be  considered  that  this  result  of  the 
inquiry  is  not  to  be  charged  to  the  method  but  to  the 
character  of  the  age  in  question.  Nothing  is  easier  than 
for  pseudonymous  writings  to  pass  unquestioned  in  an 
uncritical  age,  particularly  when  they  are  favorable  to  a 
prevalent  religious  interest.  That  the  critical  spirit  was 
not  abroad  during  the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Christian 
Church  scarcely  needs  proof  to  an  intelligent  reader. 
Men,  certainly,  were  not  critical  who  could  with  the 
utmost  confidence  and  na'ivett  quote  the  Sibylline  Books 
in  which  Messianic  prophecies  are  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  ancient  Sibyl,  and  that  was  not  a  critical  age  in  which 
even  an  Origen  could  defend  these  writings,  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria  quote  from  Aristobulus  shameless  falsifica- 
tions of  the  Greek  poets,  in  which  Orpheus  is  made  to 
speak  of  Abraham  and  Moses  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  Homer  to  discourse  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
Sabbath.  No  one  will  regard  it  as  improbable  that 
pseudonymous  writings  should  circulate  undisputed  in 
such  an  age  who  reflects  upon  similar  cases  in  more  recent 
times,  and  recalls  that  Fichte's  Criticism  of  Revelation 
was  in  its  first  anonymous  edition  almost  universally 
ascribed  to  Kant;  that  in  the  collection  of  Hegel's  works 
were  included  a  treatise  by  Schelling  and  one  by  F.  von 
Meyer  ;  that  the  authorship  of  many  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
is  doubtful  ;  that  the  Memoirs  of  the  Duchess  von  Brieg 
were  long  regarded  and  quoted  as  genuine  ;  and  that  the 
Eikon  Basilike  was,  in  spite  of  the  objections  of  Milton 
and  fifty  years  later  of  Toland,  devoutly  believed  to  be  a 
genuine  writing  of  the  "  martyr,"  Charles  I.  of  England. 
Besides,  no  one  acquainted  with  the  history  of  literary 


IN  TROD  UCTION.  3 1 

deceptions  of  the  kind  in  question  will  be  surprised  to 
find  them  in  the  early  Christian  centuries.  Frauds  of  this 
kind  were  committed  in  perfect  naivett  and  even  good 
faith  in  ancient  times.  Of  about  sixty  complete  treatises 
and  fragments  from  the  Pythagorean  school  attributed  to 
the  master  the  greater  part  are  demonstrably  spurious, 
says  Zeller,  and  were  written  by  new-Pythagoreans  about 
a  century  B.C.,  in  order  to  give  authority  to  certain  inno- 
vations. If  this  could  happen,  as  it  did  in  great  part  in 
Alexandria,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  pseudonymous 
writings  should  easily  gain  currency  and  acceptance 
among  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  who  were  credulous 
enough  to  accept  the  most  fabulous  and  absurd  traditions, 
and  even  to  believe  and  circulate  the  marvellous  and 
extravagant  promise  of  the  Messianic  vineyards  as  a 
genuine  word  of  Jesus. 

Should  any  devout  person  be  shocked  at  this  conclusion, 
and  be  inclined  to  repudiate  the  critical  method  by  which 
it  is  reached,  let  him  reflect  that  it  is  not  so  sweeping  as 
it  may  at  the  first  glance  appear  to  be.  There  is,  indeed, 
no  good  reason  why  criticism  should  offer  an  apology  for 
itself ;  but  in  the  interest  of  clear  views  of  this  matter  it 
should  be  said  that  the  conclusion  in  question  affects  only 
certain  New-Testament  books,  and  that  most  of  these  are 
of  subordinate  importance.  A  distinction  should  also  be 
made  between  the  conclusion  that  a  writing  is  not  gen- 
uine, and  that  which  declares  it  to  be  an  intentional  coun- 
terfeit. A  writing  would  come  under  the  latter  classifica- 
tion if  its  author  expressly  ascribed  it  to  another  person. 
But  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  writer  of  any  one  of  our 
canonical  Gospels,  *  which  may  have  been  designated  as 

*  The  last  chapter  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  probably  not  written  by  the 
author  of  the  rest  of  the  book,  and  even  verse  24  does  not  ascribe  the 


32          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"  according  to  "  Matthew,  John,  etc.,  without  any  inten- 
tion of  an  ascription  of  authorship.  But,  in  fact,  we  do 
not  know  by  whom  these  titles  were  prefixed.  Eveh  the 
Tubingen  criticism  does  not  dispute  the  genuineness  of 
the  four  great  Pauline  Epistles,  and  finds  in  the  synoptic 
record  an  historical  basis  for  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  As 
to  the  charge  that  the  conclusion  in  question  makes 
Christianity  and  the  Christian  Church  a  product  of  fraud 
and  deception,  it  is  almost  too  superficial  to  merit  con- 
sideration. It  originates  in  the  erroneous  identification 
of  Christianity  and  its  literature,  and  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  that  there  was  not  a  Christianity  long  before 
there  were  any  books  written  about  it,  and  that  the  author- 
ship of  a  book  is,  indeed,  a  matter  of  vital  importance. 
Besides,  even  if  some  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  by  later  writers  intentionally  ascribed  to 
apostles,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  this  was  done  with 
conscious  deception.  For  how  such  an  act  is  to  be 
morally  judged  depends  upon  the  way  in  which  such  a 
procedure  was  regarded  at  the  time  when  the  forgery  was 
committed.  In  a  time  when  the  personality  of  an  author 
counted  for  little  or  nothing,  when  critical  investigation  of 
the  authorship  of  writings  was  not  undertaken  in  order  to 
establish  their  credibility  or  importance,  and  when  the 
principal  consideration  was  whether  or  no  a  given  book 
favored  the  good  cause,  it  cannot  be  surprising  that  it 
was  not  thought  to  be  morally  reprehensible  to  credit  a 
work  written  with  good  intentions  in  the  interest  of  the 
common  faith  to  some  man  of  renown  whose  name 
would  give  it  currency.  The  wide  prevalence  of  this 
practice  in  ancient  times  and  even  in  the  early  years  of 

work  to   John,  but  to    "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  who  is  not  in    the 
Gospel  said  to  have  been  John. 


IN  TROD  UCTION.  3  3 

the  Christian  Church  should  make  one  cautious  about 
denying  the  possibility  of  its  existence  in  the  time  im- 
mediately succeeding  that  of  the  apostles.  * 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  the  historical  method  can  be 
logically  applied  only  to  materials  of  history,  that  is,  to- 
facts  and  phenomena  which  have  had  an  historical  course 
and  development.  Here  lies  the  distinction  between  it 
and  the  dogmatic  method  of  dealing  with  the  New- 
Testament  writings.  The  latter  sets  out  from  the  pre- 
sumptions that  all  these  writings  contain  one  and  the 
same  type  of  revealed  truth,  and  that  they  present  an 
unbroken  unity  of  doctrine  which  excludes  all  conflicting, 
tendencies  and  all  important  variations  of  thought  and 
opinion.  These  tendencies  and  variations  this  method 
cannot  allow,  and  accordingly  from  its  point  of  view  all 
oppositions  of  teaching  are  only  apparent,  and  may  be 
resolved  by  an  accommodating  exegesis  into  a  unity 
acceptable  to  the  believing  mind.  The  former  method, 
on  the  contrary,  permits  no  presumption  to  govern  its 
processes,  but  goes  straight  forward  in  the  application  of 
the  principles  of  historical  investigation  intent  only  on 
reaching  a  scientific  conclusion.  From  the  latter  point  of 
view  the  last  book  in  the  New-Testament  canon  marks 
the  limit  beyond  which  extends  the  wide  domain  of  the 
history  of  doctrines,  the  history  of  conflicts,  errors,, 
triumphs  of  faith,  and  tragedies  of  unbelief.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  former  method  shows  that,  far  from  being  a 
unity,  the  New  Testament  presents  varieties  of  teaching, 
conflicting  tendencies,  oppositions,  a  progress  of  thought, 
and  an  evolution  of  dogma — reveals  in  itself  the  fermenta- 
tion of  elements,  processes  of  growth,  and  the  real 
beginning  of  the  history  of  Christian  doctrines. 

*See  Zeller,  Vortrage,  etc.,  ul  supra. 


34          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

In  treating  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  and  its  earliest  inter- 
pretations, the  discussion  in  this  work  proceeds  upon  the 
judgment  that  the  synoptic  Gospels  are  the  sole  historical 
records  of  his  teaching ;  that  the  fourth  Gospel  contains 
a  transformation  of  it  effected  under  the  influence  of 
Hellenistic  thought ;  that  the  doctrine  of  Paul  must  be 
derived  from  Romans,  I  and  2  Corinthians,  I  Thessa- 
lonians,  Galatians,  and  Philippians  ;  that  Hebrews,  Colos- 
sians,  Ephesians,  and  I  Peter  are  to  be  classified  as  deutero- 
Pauline  writings  composed  toward  the  end  of  the  first 
century ;  and  that  2  Peter,  Jude,  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
and  the  so-called  Epistles  of  John  are  to  be  regarded  as 
anti-Gnostic  writings  of  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   TEACHING   OF  JESUS. 

!. DOCTRINAL    ANTECEDENTS    AND    ENVIRONMENT. 

A  LTHOUGH  the  religion  ot  Jesus,  regarded  as  his 
A^^  personal  feeling  and  experience  of  relation  to 
God,  and  regarded  again  as  to  certain  fundamental 
moral  and  spiritual  principles,  was  essentially  new,  yet 
the  right  study  of  it  must  proceed  from  a  consideration 
of  its  historical  connection  with  the  religious  doctrines  of 
the  Jewish  people.  A  clear  distinction  must,  indeed,  be 
made  between  it  and  the  so-called  theological  system,  yet 
it  would  be  manifestly  as  erroneous  to  say  that  it  was 
not  grounded  upon  certain  theological  conceptions,  as  to 
maintain  that  all  of  these  or  even  the  greater  part  of  them 
were  new  and  original.  If  Judaism  could  not  have  pro- 
duced Christianity  without  Jesus,  neither  could  Jesus, 
historically  regarded,  have  become  what  he  was  without 
the  great  teachers  of  his  people  who  preceded  him.  As 
something  absolutely  new,  then,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is 
no  more  to  be  regarded  than  as  a  mere  continuation  of 
the  law  and  the  prophets.  Genius,  indeed,  creates,  but 
it  does  not  create  out  of  nothing.  Accordingly,  in  the 
mind  of  the  wonderful  religious  Genius  who  was  the 
Founder  of  Christianity,  the  religion  of  his  ancestors 
underwent  one  of  those  great  transformations  to  which 
every  product  of  human  thought,  or,  if  one  like  the 

35 


36          THE    GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

phrase  better,  every  divine  truth  that  takes  on  a  human 
expression,  is  subject,  and  to  which,  in  fact,  his  own 
teaching  did  not  long  wait  to  be  subjected. 

Fundamental  in  the  Jewish  religion  antecedent  to  and 
at  the  time  of  Jesus  was  the  monotheistic  conception 
which,  though  perhaps  not  held  in  absolute  purity,  that  is, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  existence  of  other  beings  of  a 
superhuman  nature,  practically  included  the  unity  and 
aloneness  of  the  Supreme  Being.  Not  only  was  He  the 
omniscient,  omnipresent,  and  omnipotent  Ruler  of  the 
world,  having,  however,  an  especial  care  for  Israel,  but 
He  possessed,  as  a  most  prominent  attribute,  holiness,  and 
was  in  particular  regarded  as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  to 
whom  all  impurities  whether  physical  or  moral  are  an 
abomination,  and  in  whose  eyes  even  the  heavens  are  not 
clean.  This  quality  is  not  conceived  as  isolated  and  in- 
operative, but  as  having  effective  spiritual  relations  with 
the  chosen  people,  upon  whom  holiness  is  enjoined  be- 
cause God  is  holy.  According  to  a  very  beautiful  passage 
in  the  second  Isaiah,*  the  divine  holiness  is  also  brought 
into  immediate  connection  with  grace  and  mercy  :  "  For 
thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty  One  who  inhabiteth  eternity, 
whose  name  is  Holy,  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place, 
with  him  also  who  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit,  to 
revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of 
the  contrite  ones."  As  just,  truthful,  and  faithful  is  the 
divine  Being  also  represented  in  the  Old  Testament.  He 
holds  with  equal  hand  the  scales  of  award,  and  not  to  the 
theocratic  nation  of  His  choice  alone,  but  to  all  men  dis- 
tributes impartial  justice  and  wreaks  vengeance  on  His 
enemies.  According  to  the  Deuteronomist,  "  He  is  the 
Rock,  His  work  is  perfect ;  for  all  His  ways  are  judgment ; 

*  Isa.  Ivii.  15. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  37 

a  God  of  truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  is 
He."  *  "  All  His  works  are  done  in  truth,"  and  "  He  is 
not  a  man  that  He  should  lie,  nor  the  son  of  man  that 
He  should  repent."  f 

The  doctrine  that  Israel  was  the  chosen  people  of  God 
and  the  ideas  which  are  connected  with  and  follow  from 
it  held  a  prominent  place  in  Jewish  thought.  The  theo- 
cratic conception  in  general  is  not,  indeed,  peculiar  to  the 
Jews,  but  no  other  nation  has  held  it  with  such  intensity 
of  conviction  and  tenacity  of  purpose  and  with  so  vast  an 
influence  upon  the  religious  thought  of  mankind.  In  their 
thought  the  choice  of  the  nation  by  Jahveh  was  purely 
arbitrary,  grounded  upon  no  merit  of  theirs,  and  an  act  of 
pure  condescension  on  His  part  to  the  least  among  the 
peoples.^  The  continued  protection  of  Jahveh  was,  how- 
ever, dependent  upon  the  fidelity  of  the  nation  to  Him,  on 
•condition  of  which  they  should  be  a  "  peculiar  treasure  " 
to  Him  "  above  all  people,"  or  His  private  property  more 
than  all,  §  and  attain  extensive  dominion  in  the  earth. 
This  indomitable  passion  for  temporal  power  which  finds 
expression  in  nearly  all  the  literature  of  the  Jews,  far  from 
being  regarded  as  incompatible  with  their  religious  striv- 
ings and  aspirations,  appears  to  have  been  entertained  in 
so  close  a  connection  with  the  latter  that  the  cause  of  the 
nation  as  a  political  power  was  identified  with  that  of 
Jahveh  as  the  national  Diety.  A  striking  warmth  and 
enthusiasm  appear  in  the  poetic  fervor  with  which  the 
relation  of  Jahveh  and  the  people  of  His  choice  is 
expressed  under  the  conception  of  a  "covenant,"  which 
was  symbolized  by  the  marriage-tie,  and  the  breaking  of 

*  Deut.  xxxii.  4. 

f  Ps.  xxxiii.  iv.     Numb,  xxiii.  19. 

\  Deut.  vii.  7.  §  Ex.  xix.  5. 


38          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

which  was  represented  as  conjugal  infidelity.*  Along 
with  this  particularism  one  could  not  expect  to  find,  as, 
indeed,  one  does  not  find,  any  well-developed  conception 
of  a  general  divine  providence.  But  entirely  consistent 
with  it  was  the  persistent  Messianic  expectation  which 
outlived  through  ages  a  multitude  of  misfortunes  in 
internal  dissensions,  defeats,  captivities,  and  political  an- 
nihilation. This  was  in  general  a  direction  of  the  hope  of 
the  people  towards  an  ideal  future  in  which  the  political 
and  religious  aspirations  entertained  by  the  noblest 
minds  of  the  nation  and  nurtured  by  the  prophets 
and  psalmists  should  be  gloriously  realized.  The 
Messianic  time  is  sometimes  represented  as  a  restora- 
tion of  the  splendors  of  the  Davidic  age  ;  sometimes  its 
fulfilment  is  to  be  accomplished  through  a  King  or  Mes- 
siah ;  and  again  it  is  depicted  without  mention  of  this 
personality  as  a  time  when  misfortune  and  sorrow  shall 
have  ceased,  when  the  restoration  of  the  people  and  the 
state  shall  have  been  consummated  along  with  the  return  of 
the  captives  out  of  bondage  and  the  reunion  of  the  twelve 
tribes.  A  prominent  feature  of  this  time,  according  to- 
some  of  the  prophetic  delineations,  will  be  the  forgiveness 
of  the  sins  of  the  people  and  their  spiritual  purification, 
when  the  law  of  God  shall  be  in  their  inward  parts  and 
written  in  their  hearts,  and  all  shall  know  Him  from  the 
least  unto  the  greatest,  for  He  shall  forgive  their  iniquity 
and  remember  their  sin  no  more.  Finally,  the  prophetic 
optimism  reaches  its  culmination  in  the  extravagant  vision 
of  recognition  by  foreign  nations  of  Israel  and  Jahveh. 
when  "  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  estab- 
lished in  the  top  of  the  mountains  and  all 
nations  shall  flow  to  it ;  *  *  *  for  out  of  Zion  shall 
*  Hos.  ii.  2,  19  f  ;  iv.  12,  15  ;  Jer.  iii.  9. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  39 

go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusa- 
lem." *  It  is  by  the  intervention  of  Jahveh  that  this 
great  spiritual  transformation  of  His  people  is  to  be 
effected  —  of  Him  who  "  retained  not  His  anger  forever, 
because  He  delighteth  in  mercy."  He  will  "  subdue  the 
iniquities  "  of  the  people  and  "  cast  all  their  sins  into  the 
depths  of  the  sea."  f  Again,  the  thought  is  expressed, 
which  has  been  called  the  profoundest  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  the  suffering  of  the  innocent  servant  of  Jahveh, 
probably  the  pious  remnant  of  the  nation  in  the  captivity 
in  Babylon,  will  have  as  its  result  the  repentance  of  the 
people  and  their  return  to  God.  :f 

The  Jewish  conception  of  the  relation  of  the  Deity  to 
human  affairs  is  that  of  an  immediate  divine  direction. 
This  is  a  corollary  of  the  theocratic  idea,  and  governs  the 
pragmatism  of  the  biblical  writers  who  paid  little  regard 
to  secondary  causes.  Historical  events  are  not  conceived 
as  following  a  natural  course,  but  as  brought  about  by  the 
power  of  God  who  is  a  worker  of  wonders,  getting  the 
victory  by  His  "  right  hand  "  and  His  "  holy  arm."  §  The 
all-sufficient  divine  efficiency  is  made  even  more  striking 
by  belittling  the  human  agencies  through  which  it  operates, 
which  are  sometimes  chosen  with  great  arbitrariness  and, 
indeed,  by  means  of  very  trivial  tests.  ||  All  this  appears 
to  have  the  twofold  object  of  glorifying  Jahveh  and  taking 
from  man  all  occasion  for  boasting.Tf  The  subject  of  the 
theocracy  was,  however,  by  no  means  held  to  be  free  from 
responsibility  in  the  midst  of  this  vigorous  and  obtrusive 

*  Isa.  ii.  2,  3  ;  see  also  Micah  iv.  1-4,  vii.  11-13  ;  Zech.  viii.  20-23. 

f  Micah  vii.  18,  19  ;  see  also  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27. 

\  Isa.  lii.  i3-liii.   12. 

§  Ps.  Ixxvii.  15,  xcviii.  i  ;  Ex.  xiii.  3,  xiv.  31.  ff**       OF  vNx 

|  Judges  vii.  2-7.  j  Vjff  ^  to  *T 

Ezek.  xx.  14,  22,  44,  xxii.  22,  xxxvi.  21-23.  x*  *S  R      *  *Tl  + 


+m 


40          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

•divine  regency.  It  is  for  him  to  obey,  and  strict  account 
is  taken  of  his  transgressions.  The  divine  righteousness 
demands  the  righteousness  of  man,  and  is  offended  at  the 
sight  of  sin,  which  may  indeed  be  forgiven  to  the  penitent, 
but  must  be  atoned  for,  that  is,  "  covered  "  by  sacrifice,  an 
elaborate  system  of  which  appears  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
is  recognized  in  the  post-exilian  books.  The  sin  may  be 
atoned  for  by  punishment,  by  sacrifices,  or  according  to 
one  great  writer  by  the  sufferings  of  an  innocent  person. 
The  prophets  and  some  of  the  psalmists  attained  a  higher 
-conception  of  God's  dealing  with  sin,  and  declared  that 
the  sacrifice  of  a  broken  spirit  was  the  one  acceptable  to 
Him,  who  would  have  no  more  the  offerings  of  victims 
and  took  no  pleasure  in  bloody  altars. 

Although  the  governmental  conception  of  God  was 
fundamental  in  the  theocracy,  and  was  so  held  in  the 
earlier  development  of  the  Jewish  religion  as  almost  to 
exclude  from  thought  all  other  divine  attributes,  the  pro- 
gress of  the  people  could  not  but  eventually  bring  about 
the  recognition  of  the  humane  sentiments  and  the  conse- 
quent ascription  to  God  of  qualities  which  were  regarded 
as  noble  in  man.  The  mercy  of  God  as  the  Ruler  of  the 
chosen  people  is  a  theme  on  which  the  writers  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  the  prophets  and  psalmists  frequently  dwell 
with  great  fulness  and  fervor  of  expression.*  It  is,  how- 
ever, generally  under  the  particularistic,  national  limitation 
that  the  divine  attributes  of  love  and  mercy  are  conceived, 
although  special  personal  applications  of  them  are  not 
wanting,  notably  in  the  Psalms.  The  idea  of  God  as  a 
Father  is  not,  indeed,  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament,  but  it 
generally  appears  only  in  an  especial  application  to  Israel. 

*  Ex.  xxxiv.  7  ;  Num.  xiv.  18  ;  Deut.  vii.  9  ;  Neh.  xiii.  22  ;  Ps.  xxv.  10, 
jxxxvi.  5,  15,  etc. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  41 

Jahveh  is  represented  now  as  the  father,  now  as  the  husband 
of  His  people.*  A  more  general  conception  of  the  divine 
fatherhood  appears  to  be  expressed  in  the  beautiful  words 
of  a  psalmist :  "  A  father  of  the  fatherkss  and  a  judge 
of  the  widows  is  God,"  and  again :  "  Like  as  a  father 
pitieth  his  children,  so  Jahveh  pitieth  them  that  fear 
Him."  f  In  one  of  the  later  Psalms  the  limits  of  nation- 
alism are  broken  over  and  the  goodness  of  God  is  sung  as 
including  foreign  peoples.  The  divine  mercy  is  invoked 
that  the  way  of  God  "may  be  known  upon  the  earth," 
His  "  saving  health  among  all  nations."  J  In  some  of  the 
Old-Testament  apocryphal  books  are  found  conceptions 
of  the  universal  divine  providence  and  love  which  remind 
us  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Here  we  read  that  the  mercy 
of  the  Lord  is  upon  all  flesh,  chastening,  disciplining, 
teaching ;  §  that  he  pities  all,  loves  all  things  that  are,  and 
abhors  nothing  that  He  has  made,  for  if  he  had  hated 
anything  He  would  not  have  created  it.||  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  these  doctrines  must  be  regarded  as  greatly 
in  advance  of  the  prevailing  opinions,  since  under  the 
influence  of  the  dominant  nationalism  they  rarely  come  to 
expression  in  the  literature  of  the  people.  They  appear 
to  be  the  views  of  a  few  advanced  thinkers  who  in  part 
anticipated  by  two  or  three  hundred  years  the  great 
Teacher  of  his  nation  and  of  the  world. 

From  the  time  of  Ezra  to  that  of  Jesus,  the  legalistic 
conception  of  the  relation  of  the  people  to  Jahveh  held 
undisputed  sway,  and  was  especially  upheld  by  the  Phari- 
saic party.  The  misfortunes  under  which  the  nation  had 

*  Jer.  xxxi.  9,  ii.  i  ;  Hos.  xi.  I  ;  Mai.  ii.  10. 

f  Ps.  Ixviii.  5,  ciii.  13.  $  Ps.  Ixvii. 

§  £l£o£  de  Hvpiov  iitl  ita<5av  Gdpna,  KT&.     Sir.  xviii.  13. 

J  Wisdom  xi.  24  f,  dyaitaS  yap  rd  orra  itdvra,  UT\. 


42  THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

suffered  in  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  in  the  Baby- 
lonian exile  being  regarded  as  divine  punishments  for  their 
infidelity  to  Jahveh,  they  thought  to  secure  His  favor  and 
the  fulfilment  of  His  promises  by  a  strict  observance  of  all 
the  requirements  of  the  law.  Accordingly,  while  they 
still  suffered  from  wars  and  oppression,  and  bore  the 
burden  of  ritual  and  ceremonial,  they  were  ever  eagerly 
inquiring  when  the  kingdom  of  God  was  coming.  Such 
a  period  of  unrest,  suffering,  revolt,  and  expectation  was 
well  calculated  to  produce  an  abundant  apocalyptic  lit- 
erature which  undertook  by  means  of  a  prophetic  repre- 
sentation of  divine  interventions,  cataclysms,  and  violent 
subversions  of  the  historical  course  of  affairs,  to  solve  such 
problems  as  the  reconciliation  of  the  accumulating  misfor- 
tunes of  the  people  with  God's  choice  of  them  as  His  own, 
as  the  true  interpretation  of  His  ancient  promises,  as  their 
own  national  inferiority  to  the  great  and  victorious  world- 
powers  about  them,  and  as  the  relation  which  the  true 
religion  of  Israel  ought  to  assume  towards  the  foreign 
culture,  beliefs,  and  worship.  *  With  regard  to  this  last 
problem,  three  tendencies  existed,  that  which  favored  a 
toleration  of  foreign  beliefs,  that  which  vehemently 
opposed  such  an  attitude,  and  the  syncretism  of  the  Jews 
of  the  Dispersion  who  had  felt  the  influence  of  Hellenic 
culture,  and  of  whose  views  and  aims  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy  as  developed  by  Philo  may  be  regarded  as  the 
most  finished  expression. 

In  several  matters  of  importance,  however,  a  general 
agreement  existed  among  both  Palestinian  and  Alexan- 
drian Jews.  I.  The  writings  which  had  been  handed 
down  from  ancient  times,  and  regarded  as  clothed  with 
canonical  authority,  were  looked  upon  as  given  by  the 

*  See  the  Apocalypses  of  Daniel,  Enoch,  Baruch,  Esra,  etc. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  43 

inspiration  of  God,  and  held  in  superstitious  reverence. 
Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  thought  of  a  Jew  of 
the  time  of  Jesus,  or,  indeed,  of  some  centuries  before 
and  after,  than  to  question  the  infallibility  of  the  sacred 
books  of  the  nation.  These  were  the  centre  of  all 
religious  interest,  the  subject  of  learned  inquiry,  and  the 
basis  of  instruction  in  the  schools  and  of  edifying  dis- 
course in  the  synagogue.  It  is  almost  needless  to  remark 
that  it  did  not  accord  with  this  point  of  view  to  apply 
critical  inquiry  to  these  books  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
facts  regarding  their  authorship,  date  of  composition,  and 
authenticity.  The  traditional  ascription  of  authorship 
was  sufficient,  and  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  and 
that  the  entire  book  ascribed  in  the  canon  to  Isaiah  was 
the  work  of  that  prophet,  were  propositions  which  no  one 
thought  of  questioning.  But  with  all  this  literalism  and 
worship  of  the  Book  post-exilian  Judaism  was  degenerate 
and  spiritually  dead.  The  priest  had  succeeded  to  the 
prophet ;  the  teachers  were  occupied  with  artificial  and 
refined  interpretations  of  the  sacred  books  ;  and  in  the 
endless  course  of  an  obtrusive  ceremonial  were  unheeded 
the  admonitions  of  the  great  prophets  of  Israel's  golden 
age  of  religious  life,  enjoining  righteousness,  fidelity, 
truthfulness,  mercy,  and  justice,  with  consideration  for  the 
poor,  the  feeble,  the  widows  and  orphans.  If  this  literal- 
ism and  spiritual  degeneracy  may  be  placed  in  the  relation 
of  cause  and  effect,  no  better  illustration  could  be  furnished 
of  Paul's  great  saying  that  "  the  letter  killeth."  2.  The 
conception  of  the  Deity  tended  to  assume  a  more  spiritual 
character  towards  the  Christian  era  and  to  become  more 
puristic  and  transcendent.  The  name  of  God  was 
removed  from  common  use,  regarded  as  unspeakable,  * 

*  apprjTOv. 


44          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  avoided  as  much  as  possible  in  the  oath  and  in 
ordinary  speech  by  means  of  other  terms.  The  Alex- 
drian  translators  rendered  it  throughout  by  the  Greek 
word  for  Lord,  nvpioZ,  and  Sirach  forbids  the  naming  of 
the  Holy  One.*  Philo  also  expressly  designates  the  divine 
name  as  an  afifirftvr.  The  attempt  was  made  to  trace 
back  this  concealment  of  the  name  of  Jahveh  .to  ancient 
times,  and  to  support  it  by  the  authority  of  Moses.f  In 
accordance  with  this  puristic  idea,  and  perhaps  in  conse- 
quence of  more  refined  conceptions  of  the  divine  Being, 
appears  to  be  the  endeavor  to  alleviate  or  remove  the 
anthropomorphism  which  in  the  Old  Testament  ascribed 
to  Him  a  human  form,  members,  senses,  etc.,  and  the 
anthropopathism  according  to  which  He  was  represented 
with  human  passions.  The  Septuagint,  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  the  writings  of  Philo  and  the  other 
Alexandrian  philosophers  show  this  tendency  in  differing 
degrees.  3.  In  immediate  connection  with,  and  perhaps 
dependent  on,  these  views  of  the  nature  of  God  was 
developed  a  more  complete  angelology  than  appears  in 
the  early  literature  of  the  Jews.  Not  unknown,  indeed,  to 
the  earlier  Hebraism  was  the  conception  of  angelic  beings 
who  served  as  messengers  of  Jahveh,  shared  in  His  coun- 
sels, and  formed  His  court.  But  towards  the  time  of 
Jesus  this  originally  naive  and  poetic  idea  assumes  a  more 
dogmatic  expression  under  the  influence  of  Persian 
doctrines,  and  we  find  angels  named  and  classified.  The 
divine  manifestations  and  interventions  are  supposed  to 
be  effected  through  the  agency  of  these  intermediate 
beings  or  by  the  hypostasized  glory  of  God  (Shechinah)  or 
by  the  Word  (Memra).  Thus  the  Deity  is  thought  of  as 
withdrawn  from  direct  participation  in  the  affairs  of  men 

*  ovoiicrtiia  rov  dyiov ,  xxiii.  9.  f  Levit.  xxiv.    11-16. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS. 

in  accordance  with  the  extreme  conception 
holiness.  4.  To  Persian  influence  must  without 
be  ascribed  the  doctrine  of  evil  angels  which  does  noT 
appear  in  any  of  the  pre-exilian  books.  The  most  strik- 
ing appearances  of  Satan,  i.  e.,  Adversary,  are  in  the 
books  of  Zechariahand  Job.  In  Job  he  appears  among 
"  the  sons  of  God,"  and  is  not  represented  as  an  enemy  of 
the  Deity  or  an  outcast  from  His  presence,  but  as  a  mem- 
ber of  His  court.  In  the  former  book  his  opposition  to 
God  is  more  distinctly  set  forth,  and  in  I  Chronicles  he 
appears  as  a  tempter  of  the  king  to  an  act  of  disobedience 
which  in  2  Samuel  is  represented  as  done  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  Jahveh  himself.  In  2  Chronicles  xviii.  20  f,  a 
"  lying  spirit "  is  spoken  of  as  coming  forth  apparently 
out  of  the  group  of  angels  surrounding  the  throne  of  God 
and  offering  to  entice  Ahab  to  destruction.  Here  the 
Satan  of  the  book  of.  Job  appears  as  a  demon  who 
enters  into  and  speaks  through  false  prophets,  if  any  con- 
nection may  be  supposed  to  exist  between  the  two  con- 
ceptions. At  any  rate  this  appearance  of  the  Jewish 
belief  in  demons  is  not  without  importance  for  the  later 
doctrine  of  "  possession."  Starting  from  the  legendary 
account  in  Genesis  of  the  "  sons  of  Elohim  "  who  had 
intercourse  with  the  daughters  of  men,  there  was  devel- 
oped a  doctrine  of  fallen  angels,  which  in  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Enoch  is  worked  out  in  great  detail.  In  the 
books  of  Tobit  and  Baruch  evil  spirits  play  an  important 
part  as  crafty  and  powerful  enemies  of  mankind,  and  in 
Josephus  appears  a  well-developed  demonology  which 
deviates  from  that  of  the  book  of  Enoch  in  representing 
the  demons  as  the  spirits  of  bad  men.  The  exorcism  of 
evil  spirits  by  means  of  the  fumes  of  the  heart,  liver,  and 
gall  of  a  fish  is  mentioned  in  Tobit  vi.  6,  7,  viii.  2,  3. 


46          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

The  intense  Messianic  expectations  of  the  time  shortly 
before  and  after  Jesus  appear  in  the  Palestinian  apoca- 
lypses and  the  frequent  revolts.  The  pre-Messianic  and 
the  Messianic  periods  were  designated  respectively  as 
"  this  age,"  or  "  the  present  age,"  and  "  the  age  to  come."  * 
The  signs  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  were  thought 
to  be  tribulation,  natural  convulsions,  and  political  up- 
heavals^ and  Elias  was  expected  as  a  forerunner.^  In 
connection  with  this  Messianic  expectation  was  held  the 
doctrine  of  a  bodily  resurrection,  which  the  Sadducees 
denied,  while  the  Essenes  and  the  Alexandrians  contented 
themselves  with  a  belief  in  a  purely  spiritual  immortality. 
The  allegorical  method  of  interpreting  Scripture  should 
also  be  mentioned  as  a  striking  phenomenon  of  this  age. 
It  was  practised  by  Philo  and  the  Palestinian  scribes, 
though  strangely  combined  by  the  latter  with  a  most 
rigid  literalism.  § 

2.  —  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

The  consideration  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  respecting 
the  kingdom  of  God  naturally  comes  first  in  order,  be- 
cause it  is  with  the  proclamation  of  this  kingdom  that  the 


*  atoov  euro's, 

\  Dan.  xii.  I  ;  4  Esr.  xv.  5,  xvi.  22,  23  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  7,  8. 

\  Mai.  iii.  i  ;  iv.  5. 

§  On  the  subjects  treated  of  in  this  section  see  especially  Holtzmann, 
Judenthum  u.  Christenthum,  1867  ;  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  1890; 
Weber,  System  der  altsynag.-palast.  Theol.,  etc.,  1880  ;  Langen,  Das  Ju- 
denthum in  Palast.  zur  Zeit  Christi,  1866  ;  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  i.  1867  ; 
Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  1890  ;  Nicholas,  Des  Doct.  rel.  des  Juifs, 
1860  ;  Noack,  Urspr.  des  Christenthums,  i.  1857  ;  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrh.  des 
Heils,  i.  1838;  Havet,  Les  Orig.  du  Christianism,  iii.  1884;  Hausrath, 
Neutest.  Zeitgesch,  i.  1868  ;  Immer  Neutest,  Theol.,  1887  ;  Kuenen,  The 
Religion  of  Israel,  iii.  1875. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  47 

story  of  the  Gospels  opens.  The  oldest  Gospel  connects 
the  New  Testament  with  the  Old  by  applying  to  John 
the  Baptizer  the  theocratic  words  of  the  second  Isaiah 
which  announce  the  coming  of  Jahveh  in  His  kingdom : 
"  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  *  Prepare  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  make  straight  His  paths.'  "  *  Our  first 
canonical  Gospel  places  before  this  announcement  the 
statement  that  the  preaching  of  John  was  summed  up  in 
the  terse  and  comprehensive  words  :  "  Repent,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  f  In  like  manner  the 
first  Gospel  represents  Jesus  as  beginning  his  ministry 
after  the  baptism  with  precisely  the  same  proclamation, 
and  the  second  Gospel  puts  into  his  mouth  the  words  : 
"  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand  ; 
repent,  and  believe  the  glad  tidings."  ^  This  term,  king- 
dom of  God,  or  of  heaven,  was  not  original  either  with 
John  the  Baptizer  or  with  Jesus,  and  in  opening  his  min- 
istry with  its  announcement,  as  we  must  believe 'he  did, 
since  the  oldest  Gospels  so  represent,  Jesus  connected  his 
mission  with  the  history  and  the  theocratic-political  hopes 
of  his  nation.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  an  expression 
well  known  to  the  Jews  of  his  time,  and  was  understood 
by  them  in  the  genuine  national  theocratic  sense  as  the 
ideal  realization  of  that  kingship  of  God  over  His  people 
which  through  the  entire  canonical  and  apocryphal  litera- 
ture is  regarded  as  the  normal  relation  which  would  subsist 
when  the  promises  of  the  prophets  and  the  theocratic- 

*  Mark  i.  3  ;  cf.  Isa.  xl.,  3. 

f  Matt.  iii.  2.  In  the  first  Gospel  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  fta6i\.Eia. 
Toor  ovpav(av,is  always  used,  with  four  exceptions.  Mark  and  Luke  em- 
ploy "kingdom  of  God,"  /3a6iA.Ei'a  rov  Beov. 

\  Mark  i.  15.  The  third  Gospel  omits  this  announcement,  and  describes 
the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry  vaguely  thus:  "And  he  taught  in  their 
synagogues,  honored  by  all,"  iv.  15. 


48          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

religious    hopes    of    the    people    should   be   fulfilled    and 
realized. 

That  the  traditional  Jewish  conception  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  in  important  respects  modified  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  there  is  no  doubt,  and  these  modifications 
will  be  considered  further  on  ;  but  in  respect  to  the  tem- 
poral character  and  theatre  of  this  kingdom  his  teaching 
was  a  continuation  of  that  of  the  prophecies  and  apoca- 
lypses which  preceded  him.  We  have  seen  that  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry  he  took  up  the  announcement 
of  the  Baptizer  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand. 
That  it  was  not  only  near,  but  had  already  come,  is  im- 
plied in  the  saying  that  "  from  the  time  of  John  the 
Baptizer  until  now  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  vio- 
lence and  the  violent  seize  upon  it."  *  As  a  proof  that  it 
has  "  already  come,"  he  adduces  his  casting  out  of  demons 
"  by  the  finger  of  God."  f  When  asked  by  the  Pharisees 
as  to  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  he  answered 
that  it  was  not  to  come  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  watched 
for,  but  that  it  was  there  already  in  the  midst  of  them.  * 
In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  tares,  which  is 
announced  as  a  parable  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the 
field  is  said  to  be  the  world,  and  the  sower  of  the  good 
seed  the  Son  of  Man,  while  the  distinction  is  clearly 
drawn  between  the  existing  kingdom  and  the  future 
"  consummation  of  the  age,"  §  in  which  the  perfection  of 
the  former  is  to  be  effected  by  a  process  of  purification. 
In  the  series  of  parables  to  which  this  one  belongs  that 
of  the  leaven  which  should  effect  a  universal  transforma- 

*  Matt.  xi.  12  ;  Luke  xvi.  16. 

f  Matt.  xii.  28  ;  Luke  xi.  20. 

\  Luke  xvii.  20,  21. 

§  6vvT£\Eia   TOV  at(2vo$  TOVTOV,  Matt.  xiii.  39. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  49 

tion,  and  that  of  the  grain  of  mustard  which  grows  to  a 
great  tree  "  so  that  the  birds  of  the  air  come  and  lodge 
in  its  branches,"  both  prophesy  the  development  of  a 
spiritual  world-kingdom.  The  temporal  point  of  view  also 
obtains  in  the  injunction  not  to  be  anxious  about  food 
and  raiment,  but  to  seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
His  righteousness  in  the  assurance  that  He  whose  provi- 
dence clothes  the  lilies  will  care  also  for  men.  The  bless- 
ing pronounced  upon  the  poor  in  spirit  and  upon  those 
persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake  implies  the  present 
existence  and  possession  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.*  It 
already  is,  and  its  privileges  are  enjoyed  by  the  poor  in 
spirit  and  the  persecuted.  As  an  existing  economy  the 
publicans  and  harlots  are  said  to  be  entering  into  it  before 
the  chief  priests  and  the  elders.f  As  introduced  into  the 
world,  it  is  not  necessarily  limited  by  national  boundaries, 
but  may  be  taken  from  one  people  and  given  to  another.  J 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
thought  of  Jesus  was  the  realization  in  human  society  of 
the  highest  moral  and  spiritual  ideals.  Its  perfection 
would  be  attained  when  the  will  of  God  should  be  done 
by  men  on  the  earth  as  it  was  conceived  to  be  done  in 
heaven  by  the  angels.  Jesus  was  no  dreamer,  brooding 
over  nebulous  philosophizings  as  to  the  solution  in  a 
celestial  future  -of  the  problems  of  life  and  destiny,  but 
a  practical  reformer,  God-inspired  and  filled  with  a  divine 
enthusiasm  of  righteousness,  who  would  overcome  wrong, 
selfishness,  and  sin  upon  the  earth  by  the  heavenly  powers 
of  truth,  love,  and  holiness.  He  was  a  new  preacher  of 
the  old,  sound,  strong  religion  of  conduct  by  which 

*  Matt.  v.  3,  10. 
f  Matt.  xxi.  31. 
\  Matt,  xxi.,  41. 

4 


50          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

his  nation  had  attained  all  its  greatness,  and  in  which 
alone  it  had  then,  broken  and  disheartened,  any  hold 
upon  the  future.  He  was  a  disciple  and  continuator  of 
the  great  prophets  of  Israel  who,  in  the  midst  of  a  flood  of 
adverse  fortunes  and  overwhelming  defeats,  never  ceased 
to  proclaim  their  faith  that  God  could  and  would  estab- 
lish upon  the  earth  a  kingdom  wherein  should  dwell  right- 
eousness. Not  less  than  theirs  was  his  confidence  in 
God,  and  with  all  the  ardor  and  earnestness  of  a  great 
nature  he  devoted  himself  to  the  fulfilment  upon  the 
earth  of  the  promises  of  the  prophets  and  of  his  own 
prophetic  hopes.  The  first  historic  departure  from  this 
great  purpose  occurred  through  the  weakness  and  super- 
stition of  his  followers  when,  after  the  tragedy  which 
ended  his  earthly  career,  they  began,  "  gazing  up  into 
heaven,"  to  revel  in  visions  and  apocalypses  of  his  second 
coming;  and  the  latest  infidelity  to  this  heroic  faith  is 
presented  in  the  absorbing  occupation  of  modern  Chris- 
tendom with  refinements  of  theological  speculation  and 
problems  of  future  salvation. 

If,  however,  Jesus  regarded  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
introduced  among  men  by  his  teaching,  it  was  not  yet 
completed  and  consummated.  He  and  a  few  followers 
who  did  not  half  comprehend  him  were  alone  its  repre- 
sentatives against  an  unfriendly  world.  Out  of  these 
feeble  beginnings  his  indomitable  faith  beheld  a  future 
growth  of  the  kingdom  to  greatness  and  power.  Through 
all  his  teaching  there  runs  the  apparent  paradox  that  the 
kingdom  is  here,  and  that  it  is  yet  to  come.  He  asserts 
that  a  greater  than  any  of  the  old  prophets  had  announced" 
it,  and  that  with  himself  it  had  come  into  the  world,  yet 
he  teaches  his  disciples  to  pray  that  it  may  come,  and 
that  in  its  coming  God's  will  may  be  done  upon  the  earth. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  51 

He  compares  it  to  a  grain  of  mustard  which  is  yet  to 
grow  to  a  great  tree,  and  to  leaven  whose  vast  process  of 
transformation  is  yet  to  be  accomplished.  It  is  evident, 
then,  that  to  his  prophetic  insight  the  kingdom  of  God, 
his  kingdom,  was  destined  to  have  an  historical  develop- 
ment and  to  be  a  victorious  transforming  force  among  the 
earthly  powers  of  the  future.  But  heavenly  Patience  and 
Faith  must  watch  over  its  processes,  and  withhold  the 
rash  hand  which  would  pluck  up  the  tares  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  wheat.*  In  the  consummation  whatever  the 
enemy  has  wrought  will  be  condemned  and  rejected, 
and  the  good  will  be  garnered  and  preserved.  Not 
according  to  the  idea  of  the  Baptizer  did  Jesus  bear  in 
his  hand  the  winnowing-shovel.  He  had  the  patience 
which  was  wanting  to  the  fierce  prophet  of  the  desert, 
and  with  more  comprehensive  mind  and  farther  sight 
saw  in  the  processes  of  the  ages  the  consummation  of 
his  kingdom. 

Here  we  might  leave  Jesus'  conception  of  the  future  of 
his  kingdom  in  the  world,  with  nothing  to  mar  it  as  a 
product  of  a  noble  and  sound  intelligence,  of  moral  earn- 
estness and  a  great  faith  in  the  truth  and  in  God,  were  it 
not  that  some  words  are  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Gospels 
which  appear  to  represent  an  altogether  different  view  of 
the  matter.  For  nothing  can  be  more  opposed  to  this 
sane  and  rational  conception  of  the  development  of  his 
kingdom,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  expressed  in  the  par- 
ables of  the  grain  of  mustard  and  the  leaven,  than  is  the 
idea  of  a  sudden  crisis  and  a  hasty  consummation  within 
the  generation  then  living,  which  appears  to  be  conveyed 
in  the  words :  "  Truly  do  I  say  to  you,  there  are  some  of 
those  standing  here  who  will  not  taste  of  death  till  they 
*  Matt.  xiii.  24-30. 


52          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

have  seen  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom."  *  A 
violent  interference  with  the  order  of  natural  development 
and  a  catastrophic  descent  and  establishment  of  the  king- 
dom with  the  aid  of  celestial  powers  are  indicated  in  the 
explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  tares.  At  the  "  consum- 
mation of  the  age,"  f  or,  as  the  words  are  commonly  ren- 
dered, at  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  "  the  Son  of  Man  will 
send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  will  gather  out  of  his 
kingdom  all  the  stumbling-blocks  and  those  who  do 
iniquity,  and  will  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire  ;  there 
will  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  The  parable  of 
the  net  is  made  to  close  with  the  introduction  of  similar 
mythological  features  :  "  So  it  will  be  at  the  consum- 
mation of  the  age.  The  angels  will  come  forth,  and 
separate  the  wicked  from  among  the  righteous,  and  will 
cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire ;  there  will  be  wailing 
and  gnashing  of  teeth."  £  This  also  is  said  to  be  a  par- 
able of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  We  meet  here  with  an 
expression  which  appears  strange  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
"  the  consummation  of  the  age."  A  related  expression  is 
also  found  in  other  sayings  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Gospels, 
as  in  that  with  reference  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  he  is  made  to  say  would  "  not  be  forgiven  in  this 
age  or  in  the  age  to  come."  §  These  latter  terms  also 
appear  in  the  very  materialistic  promise  to  the  disciples 
put  into  the  riiouth  of  Jesus  in  answer  to  the  implied 
question  of  Peter  as  to  what  they  were  to  get  who  had 
left  all  to  follow  him  :  "  There  is  no  one  who  hath  left 

*  Matt.  xvi.  28.  Mark  reports  the  saying  differently:  "Till  they  have 
seen  that  the  kingdom  of  God  hath  come  with  power,"  ix.  I,  and  Luke 
softens  it  into  :  "  Till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God,"  ix.  27. 

f  6vvTK\eia  TOV  at&voS. 

\  Matt.  xiii.  41-43,  49,  50. 

§  Matt.  xii.  32. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  53 

house,  or  brothers,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or  chil- 
dren, or  lands,  for  the  sake  of  me  and  of  the  glad  tidings, 
who  will  not  receive  a  hundred-fold  in  the  time  that  now 
is,  houses,  and  brothers  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and 
children,  and  lands,  with  persecutions,  and  in  the  age  to 
come  [ev  rep  ai&vi  rep  fp^o/^Vo?]  everlasting  life."  * 
According  to  the  first  Gospel  these  material  rewards  are 
to  be  enjoyed  "  in  the  renovation  f  when  the  Son  of  Man 
sitteth  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,"  and  to  the  apostles 
the  promise  is  added  that  they  shall  "sit  on  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  f 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  passages  present 
grave  difficulties  to  those  who  regard  them  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  unity  of  doctrine  in  the  Gospels,  and 
also  to  those  who  suppose  that  the  views  of  Jesus  regard- 
ing the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  the  manner  of  its  con- 
summation underwent  a  gradual  change  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  his  career.  The  former  theory  puts 
too  great  a  strain  upon  exegesis,  and  requires  in  short 
nothing  less  than  the  reconciliation  of  irreconcilable  op- 
positions, of  a  process  by  evolution  with  a  swift  comple- 
tion by  convulsions  effected  through  celestial  agencies,  of 
sober  practical  judgment  and  faith  in  the  divine  order 
with  dreams  and  visions  of  Jewish  Apocalypses.  As  to 
the  latter  hypothesis,  it  does  not,  indeed,  require  us  to 

*  Mark  x.  29,  30. 

\  TtakiyyEVEGia,  "that  restoration  of  the  primal  and  perfect  condi- 
tion of  things  which  existed  [as  was  supposed]  before  the  fall  of  our  first 
parents  which  the  Jews  looked  for  in  connection  with  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah,  and  which  the  primitive  Christians  expected  in  connection  with  the 
"visible  return  of  Jesus  from  heaven."  Grimm-Wilke's  Clavis  N.  T.  sub 
voce ;  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrh.  des  Heils,  ii.  p.  101  ;  Weber,  System  der  Altsyn.- 
palast.  Theol.  p.  380  f ;  Cremer,  Bibl.-Theol.  Lexicon  of  N.  T.  Greek, 
p.  150. 

\  Matt.  xix.  28-30. 


54          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

attempt  impossibilities,  but  so  radical  a  change  in  Jesus' 
conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  it  supposes  should 
not  be  assumed  unless  an  adequate  cause  for  it  can  be 
found  in  his  environment.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
the  attitude  which  the  Jewish  authorities  assumed  towards 
him  near  the  end  of  his  ministry  may  have  cooled  the 
ardor  of  his  early  hopes  in  the  success  of  his  cause,  but 
the  theory  that  this  circumstance  could  entirely  change 
his  conception  of  the  nature  of  his  mission  and  of  the 
agencies  by  which  its  good  fortune  was  to  be  secured,  and 
lead  him  to  believe  that  he  must  invoke  the  aid  of  the 
celestial  powers,  and  come  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  in 
order  to  establish  it,  is  too  bold  and  violent  by  far.  It 
implies  in  the  first  place  the  assumption  that  he  must 
have  regarded  the  fortunes  of  his  cause  as  dependent  on 
a  merely  local  and  temporary  condition,  and,  indeed,  in 
general,  upon  the  reception  which  it  might  have  among 
the  Jews  of  his  time.  This  is  to  suppose  an  almost  total 
collapse  of  that  heroic  faith  which  we  have  seen  that  he 
had  in  the  historic  fortune  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  a 
resort  to  superstition,  the  refuge  of  little  minds  and  the 
last  stage  of  the  degeneracy  of  a  feeble  faith.  Besides, 
great  difficulties  attend  the  attempt  to  show  that  Jesus 
held  different  views  at  different  periods  of  his  ministry, 
and  especially  that  there  was  a  marked  development  in 
his  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  his  mission  and  the  charac- 
ter of  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  the  reason  that  the  chro- 
nology of  the  Gospels  is  sometimes  uncertain  and  again 
altogether  indeterminable.  But  apart  from  these  diffi- 
culties, it  cannot  but  appear  strange  to  the  historical 
judgment  that  Jesus,  who  had  repeatedly  declared  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  was  already  among  men,  and  that 
his  public  ministry  had  introduced  it,  should  speak  of  it, 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  55 

as  in  the  passages  previously  quoted,  as  if  it  were  yet  to 
come,  and  should  employ  the  expressions,  "  the  age  to 
come,"  and  "  the  renovation,"  which  could  only  be  under- 
stood according  to  the  usage  of  the  time  as  referring  to 
the  Messianic  age,  or  the  age  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  still 
in  the  future.  Did  he  at  one  time  think  that  he  had  ac- 
tually introduced  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  that  it  was  to 
have  an  historical  development,  and  did  he  afterwards 
waver  and  doubt  ?  Did  he  teach  both  that  its  coming 
was  not  as  of  something  to  be  "  watched  for,"  that  it  was 
already  "  in  the  midst  "  of  men,  and  also  that  it  was  yet 
to  come  with  tclat,  with  the  Son  of  Man  riding  on  the 
clouds  attended  by  a  troop  of  angels?  Did  he  at  one 
time  plainly  teach  by  implication  that  the  judgment  of 
his  kingdom  was  moral,  silently  executing  itself  in  the 
lives  of  men  and  discriminating  between  honesty  and 
hypocrisy,  between  penitent  harlots  and  self-righteous 
Pharisees,  and  at  another  time  declare  that  this  judgment 
was  to  be  dramatic  and  apocalyptic,  executed  by  "angels" 
who  should  "  come  forth "  and  cast  the  wicked  into  a 
furnace  of  fire?  Did  he  at  one  time  teach  his  disciples 
that  it  is  the  law  of  the  kingdom  of  God  that  he  who 
would  be  first  among  them  should  be  their  servant,  and 
at  another  that  in  the  "  renovation,"  or  the  apocalyptic 
kingdom,  they  should  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  "tribes  of  Israel  ?  Did  he  give  them  at  one  time 
the  sane  and  sober  assurance  that  they  should  drink  of 
his  cup  and  be  baptized  with  his  baptism — a  promise 
which  was  indeed  not  only  fulfilled  in  their  experience, 
but  has  been  fulfilled  in  that  of  all  his  true  followers 
since — and  did  he  at  another  time  expressly  implant  in 
their  minds  insane  hopes  of  dominion  and  thrones  to 
be  enjoyed  within  that  generation — hopes  which  were 


56          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

never   realized,  and   never   could    be — dreams  of  Jewish 
apocalypses  ? 

In  attempting  to  answer  these  questions  and  to  deter- 
mine what  was  Jesus'  real  conception  of  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  God,  whether  it  was  an  historical 
or  an  apocalyptical  conception,  we  must  first  of  all 
renounce  those  exegetical  subtilties  by  which  it  is  sought 
to  reconcile  things  that  are  irreconcilable,  and  for  which 
all  difficulties  disappear  by  a  reference  to  figures  of  speech. 
The  question  to  be  answered  is, "  Is  it  more  probable  that 
Jesus  used  this  apocalyptic  language  than  that  it  expresses 
the  hopes  and  expectations  of  a  later  time?  "  It  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  no  grounds  exist  for  a  definite  set- 
tlement of  this  question,  and  that  the  greater  probability 
must  be  the  end  of  the  inquiry.  If  Jesus  conceived  of  the 
Messianic  mission  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  his 
time,  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that 
he  may  have  used  such  language  as  that  quoted  from  the 
Gospels  in  the  preceding  pages.  But  it  is  certainly  diffi- 
cult not  to  think  that  his  ethical  conception  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  should  exclude,  should  render  impossible  to 
him,  such  apocalyptical  ideas  and  such  unrealized  and  un- 
realizable hopes.  We  may  say,  indeed,  that  "  his  ethical 
purity  and  greatness  are  independent  of  all  such  local 
opinions,"  *  but  it  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  his  holding  of 
them  with  the  intellectual  greatness,  sobriety,  and  strength, 
with  which  we  see  that  he  elsewhere  conceives  and  un- 
folds the  idea  of  the  kingdom.  The  question  has  often 
been  asked  :  How  can  we  account  for  the  expectations  of 
such  an  apocalyptical  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  which  are  found  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  if  Jesus 
did  not  speak  substantially  as  he  is  reported?  This  diffi- 

*  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  358. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  57 

culty  may  not  be  capable  of  an  entirely  satisfactory 
explanation,  but  it  appears  much  less  formidable  than 
before,  after  one  has  read  the  passages  relating  to  the 
second  coming  in  connection  with  the  apocalyptical 
writings  which  influenced  Jewish  thought  in  the  first  cen- 
tury after  Christ,  and  when  one  also  considers  that  the 
belief  of  the  early  Christians  in  the  Messianic  mission  of 
Jesus  could  not  be  satisfied  without  a  second  manifesta- 
tion which  should  efface  the  ignominy  of  Calvary,  institute 
a  judgment  upon  the  enemies  of  the  good  cause,  and  reveal 
the  defeated  and  Humiliated  Jesus  of  history  as  the  real 
and  victorious  Messiah  of  the  "  age  to  come."  The  Jewish 
Messianism  which  finds  expression  in  the  half-despairing 
half-hopeful  words  ascribed  by  tradition  to  two  disciples 
on  the  road  to  Emmaus,  "  But  we  are  hoping  that  it  is  he 
who  is  to  redeem  Israel,"  *  considered  in  connection  with 
the  demonstrable  tendency  to  exalt  and  glorify  the  person 
of  Jesus  which  set  in  soon  after  his  death,  furnishes  fruit- 
ful suggestions  as  to  the  origin  of  apocalyptical  passages 
in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  f  A  careful  and  candid  con- 
sideration of  the  facts  in  the  case,  then,  appears  to  show  a 
preponderating  probability  for  the  opinion  that  the 
apocalyptic  passages  in  question  are  not  accurately  reported 
words  of  Jesus.  Out  of  his  strong  faith  in  his  cause  he 
may  very  likely  have  prophesied  the  future  glory  and 
triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  the  earth,  and  may 

*  Luke  xxiv.  21. 

f  Georgii,  Eschatolog.  Vorstellungen  der  neutest.  Schriftsteller,  Theol. 
Jahrbucher,  iv.  1-25  ;  Baur,  Vorles.  uber  neutest.  Theol.  pp.  105-112  ;  Keim, 
Gesch,  Jesu,  iii.  pp.  219,  335;  Weiffenbach,  Wiederkunftsgedanke  Jesu,  1873; 
Immer,  Neutest.  Theol.  p.  142  f ;  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T.  3te  Ausg. 
1879.  §§  32-34  ;  Toy,  Judaism,  etc.  p.  358  f  ;  Wittichen,  Art.  "Zukunft" 
in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon,  v.,  p.  725;  Von  Colin,  Bibl.  Theol.,  1836,  ii. 
P-  153. 


58          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

have  connected  with  his  foresight  of  its  fortunes  some 
conception  of  the  judgment  which  would  attend  its  his- 
torical course.  But  that  in  the  tradition  of  the  early 
Christians,  to  whose  feverish  Messianic  hopes  the  real 
advent  of  the  Christ  was  a  coming  "  in  power  "  which  was 
still  in  the  future,  his  prophetic  words  should  have  assumed 
the  highly-colored  and  extravagant  expression  of  Jewish 
apocalypses  is  very  probable,  and  to  the  historic  sense,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  sentiment  of  reverence  for  Jesus,  is  more 
probable  than  that  he  should  himself  have  employed  such 
terms.  Since  nearly  half  a  century  elapsed  from  the  time 
when  the  words  of  Jesus  were  spoken  before  our  synop- 
tical Gospels  were  written,  and  since  no  one  of  these  is 
the  immediate  record  of  a  personal  disciple,  the  conditions 
are  not  wanting  for  such  a  transformation  of  his  sayings 
regarding  the  future  as  this  theory  requires. 

The  exclusion  of  these  sensuous  and  apocalyptic  features 
from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  finds  support  in  the  manifest 
fact  of  his  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
not,  indeed,  at  a  particular  period  of  his  ministry,  but 
throughout  its  whole  extent.  It  was  not  the  Jewish  king- 
dom of  God  with  its  theocratic-national  and  political 
features  which  he  preached.  He  surpassed  the  greatest  of 
the  prophets  and  the  noblest  minds  of  his  own  time  not 
only  in  having  the  courage  and  faith  to  declare  that  this 
kingdom  had  already  come,  but  also  in  conceiving  of  it 
not  as  a  condition  in  which  external  prosperity  and  free- 
dom were  inseparably  connected  with  an  ethical-religious 
transformation,  but  in  which  the  former  were  to  be 
absolutely  subordinated  to  the  latter.  In  fact,  one  may 
say  that  in  his  thought  the  kingdom  was  not  a  thing  to  be 
so  much  wished  and  sought  for  as  moral  and  spiritual  fit- 
ness for  it.  The  stress  is  laid  in  all  his  teaching  upon  the 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  59 

ethical  and  religious  renewal  of  the  people,  and  while  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  he  occasionally  referred  to  matters 
of  temporal  interest,  and  showed  himself,  as  has  been 
maintained,  a  patriot  *  ;  that  he  called  Jerusalem  in  the 
words  of  a  patriotic  Psalm  "  the  city  of  the  great  king  "  ; 
that  he  wept  over  the  obduracy  of  its  inhabitants ;  and 
that  he  warned  his  fellow-countrymen  that  unless  they 
repented  they  would  all  perish  after  the  manner  of  the 
victims  of  Pilate's  wrath,  f  yet  the  opinion  maintained  by 
Hase  and  Keim  that  he  conceived  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  theocratic-political  institution,  or  at  least  that  he  did  not 
exclude  from  it  earthly  and  sensuous  features  ;  that  "  he 
never  transformed  the  sensuous  Messiah-idea  into  a  purely 
spiritual  one  "  \ ;  and  that "  on  the  way  to  his  death  he  lifted 
the  banner  of  the  theocratic  Messiah  aloft  even  into  the 
heavenly  regions,"  §  has  against  it  almost  the  entire  testi- 
mony of  the  synoptic  Gospels  on  which  these  scholars 
rely,  and  finds,  of  course,  not  the  least  support  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  It  results  from  an  examination  of  the 
evidence  adduced  in  support  of  this  opinion  that  it  rests  to 
a  great  extent  on  those  passages  which  should  rather  be 
regarded  as  expressing  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the 
early  Christians  than  included  in  the  genuine  teaching  of 
Jesus.  The  theory  that  he  secretly  cherished  hopes  of  a 
worldly  dominion,  but  refrained  from  declaring  himself  as 
a  temporal  Messiah  from  fear  of  the  Roman  power,  rests  on 
nothing  but  a  conjecture,  and  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  his 
integrity  in  view  of  his  open  and  repeated  assertions  of  his 
spiritual  purpose.  The  general  tendency  of  his  teaching 

*  Hausrath,  Neutest.  Zeitgesch.,  p.  367  ;    Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  ii.  pp.  42  f. 

•j-  Luke  xiii.  3. 

\  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  ii.  p.  49. 

§  Hase,  Gesch.  Jesu,  1876,  p.  418. 


60          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  his  whole  demeanor  are  opposed  to  this  theory.  The 
subjects  of  his  kingdom  were  to  have  the  gentleness  of 
the  little  child  rather  than  the  spirit  of  the  warrior,  and  the 
disposition  of  the  helper  and  minister  rather  than  that  of 
the  ruler.  His  ministry  was  to  the  humble  and  poor,  and  he 
made  no  overtures  to  the  rich  and  powerful,  but  rather 
declared  that  those  who  had  great  possessions  would  with 
difficulty  enter  the  kingdom.  He  forbade  the  use  of  the 
sword,  and  though  on  one  occasion  he  spoke  of  the  con- 
flicts which  the  entrance  of  his  teaching  into  the  world 
would  bring  about,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  he 
had  in  mind  a  contest  for  political  supremacy.  His  trium- 
phant entrance  into  Jerusalem  and  his  authoritative  purifi- 
cation of  the  temple  can  hardly  be  interpreted  as  an  attempt 
to  assume  temporal  dominion,  in  the  absence  of  an  appeal 
to  arms  and  of  a  single  threat,  even  by  a  hint,  against  the 
Roman  power.  "  To  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's, 
and  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  is  not  the  motto  of 
a  revolutionist. 

If  the  foregoing  conclusions  are  valid,  there  can  be 
but  little  room  for  a  difference  of  opinion  on  the  question 
whether  Jesus'  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  par- 
ticularistic or  universal,  that  is,  whether  he  conceived  it  as 
a  Jewish  kingdom  or  a  world-kingdom.  The  chief  difficul- 
ties which  this  question  presents  arise  from  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  records,  or  from  what  may  be  called  the 
"tendency"  of  the  writers,  by  reason  of  which  they  ap- 
pear consciously  or  unconsciously  to  favor  in  their  repre- 
sentations of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  the  Jewish-Christian 
or  the  Pauline  view  of  the  Gospel.*  Our  first  and  third 
Gospels  in  which  the  tendencies  are  more  marked  than  in 

*  See  the  author's  Gospel-Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity,  1891,  pp. 
291-305. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  6 1 

the  second  must,  accordingly,  be  used  with  discrimination 
in  the  study  of  this  question.  Mark  as  well  as  Luke 
represents  Jesus  as  not  confining  his  ministry  to  the  Jews, 
but  as  visiting  the  contiguous  territory  on  occasion,*  and 
the  first  Gospel  mentions  the  journey  into  Tyre  and 
Sid'on.f  On  the  contrary  Mark  and  Luke  omit  the  in- 
junction to  the  disciples,  which  the  first  Gospel  records, 
not  to  go  to  gentiles  or  Samaritans.:):  On  the  critical 
theory  that  Mark  is  the  oldest  Gospel,  there  would  appear 
to  be  good  reason  for  supposing  that  this  prohibition  did 
not  belong  to  the  original  tradition  of  Jesus,  but  was 
added  to  the  first  Gospel  by  its  author  or  editor  in  its 
present  form,  since  this  record  contains  other  Judaizing 
traits,  and  appears  on  the  whole  to  have  been  written  in 
the  interest  of  the  Jewish-Christian  party.  There  is  an 
apparent  conflict  of  tendencies  in  this  Gospel,  which  com- 
plicates the  question  of  the  actual  attitude  of  Jesus  tow- 
ards Jews  and  gentiles,  but  the  difficulty  is  somewhat 
relieved  when  one  discriminates  between  the  actual  words 
of  Jesus  and  the  general  drift  of  the  record.  It  is  not 
improbable,  too,  that  Jesus  expressed  himself  differently 
at  different  times,  and  that  a  sentiment  of  fidelity  to  the 
tradition  may  have  determined  the  editor  of  the  first  Gos- 
pel, as  well  as  the  author  of  the  third,  to  retain  sayings 
which  appear  to  conflict  with  one  another.  Jesus  appears 
suddenly  to  have  changed  his  attitude  towards  the  gen- 
tiles in  the  case  of  the  Syrophcenician  woman  §  to  whom 
he  at  first  refused  aid  with  the  harsh  words,  "  It  is  not 
allowable  to  take  the  children's  bread  and  throw  it  to  the 

*  Mark  vii.  24,  31  ;  Luke  ix.  52. 
f  Chap.  xv.  21. 
j  Matt.  x.   5,  6. 
§  Matt.  xv.  21  f. 


62          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

little  dogs,"  afterwards  granting  her  request  because  of 
her  "  great  faith."  In  the  case  of  the  centurion's  servant, 
however,  no  hesitation  is  recorded,  and  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  commended  the  heathen  officer's  faith  in  a  manner 
far  from  favorable  to  the  Jews.  If  we  exclude  the  com- 
mission to  preach  to  and  baptize  all  nations  and  the  sen- 
suously-colored saying  that  many  should  come  from  the 
east  and  the  west  and  recline  at  table  with  Abraham  * 
from  the  genuine  teachings  of  Jesus,  it  does  not  seem  to  be 
an  improbable  conclusion  even  from  the  first  Gospel  that, 
while  Jesus  occupied  originally  the  particularistic  point 
of  view  of  the  Old  Testament,f  his  experience  of  the  sus- 
ceptibility to  his  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  heathen  and 
of  the  obduracy  and  hostility  of  most  of  the  Jews  had  a 
tendency  not  merely  to  produce  in  him  a  sudden  impulse, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Syrophoenician  woman,  but  to  con- 
firm the  conviction  of  the  universal  destination  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  which  he  would  naturally  hold  by  reason 
of  his  doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brother- 
hood of  man.J 

3. — THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  THE   KINGDOM  OF   GOD. 

In  Jesus'  doctrine  of  righteousness  as  compared  with 
that  of  the  Old  Testament  is  presented  an  example  of 
those  great  transformations  of  ethical-religious  ideas  which 
are  inevitable  in  the  course  of  the  spiritual  progress  of 
mankind.  The  impulse  to  which  these  transformations 
are  due  often  proceeds,  as  in  this  case,  from  a  great  reli- 

*Matt.  xxviii.  18,  viii.  n,  12. 

f  His  respect  for  and  observance  of  the  law,  Matt.  viii.  4  ;  Luke  xvii. 
14  ;  Mark  xiv.  12  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  17  ;  Luke  xxii.  7-9. 

\  See  Matt.  v.  43-48,  and  compare  Paul's  teaching  that  the  Israelites  are 
first  called,  the  gentiles  afterwards,  Rom.  ix.  30-33. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  63 

gious  genius.  At  bottom  the  idea  of  righteousness*  is  a 
moral  one,  but  it  followed  the  usual  course  of  moral  con- 
ceptions in  assuming  a  religious  application  in  reference  to 
man's  relation  to  God.  Accordingly  there  appear  in  the 
Old  Testament  two  sorts  of  righteousness,  a  righteousness 
of  the  law  and  a  righteousness  of  the  heart.  According 
to  the  former  conception  he  was  righteous  who  observed 
all  the  statutes  of  Jahveh,  the  ceremonies,  purifications, 
festivals,  etc.,  and  kept  himself  from  the  foreign  cults. 
This  legal  righteousness  is  celebrated  in  many  of  the 
Psalms.  He  is  pronounced  blessed  whose  delight  is  in 
the  law  of  Jahveh,  and  whose  meditations  are  on  it  day 
and  night.  The  author  of  the  5ist  Psalm  is  unable  to 
free  himself  from  it  in  the  last  verse  notwithstanding  the 
spirituality  of  the  rest  of  the  composition.  The  iigth 
Psalm  is  conceived  throughout  in  the  spirit  of  this  formal 
righteousness,  and  some  of  the  great  prophets  often  reveal 
their  limitation  by  this  point  of  view.  The  later  scrip- 
turalism  of  the  scribes  tended  to  develop  still  further  the 
legalistic  conception  of  human  righteousness  until  it  re- 
sulted in  Phariseeism  with  its  statutory  rigor  and  casu- 
istry. Many  passages  in  the  book  of  Sirach  express  the 
profound  respect  which  was  felt  for  this  legal  righteous- 
ness. But  together  with  this  artificial  righteousness  was 
taught  and  enforced  another  which  was  more  profound, 
and  struck  its  roots  deeper  into  the  past.  This  was  a 
noble  moral  earnestness  touched  with  the  religious  emo- 
tions of  love  and  trust  towards  God.  It  was  a  righteous- 
ness which  sprang  out  of  a  sense  of  immediate  relation  to 
God,  and  its  law  does  not  fail  of  expression  even  in  the 
midst  of  the  mass  of  legalism  which  composes  the  book 

*  diKoaotivrrf.     On    the  relation    of  the  biblical  to  the  classical  Greek 
sense  see  Cremer,  Bib.-Theol.  Lexicon,  etc.,  sub  race  8i-naio~. 


64          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  Deuteronomy:  "  Thou  shalt  love  Jahveh  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  might." 
Accordingly  it  is  said  that  Abraham's  trust  in  God  was 
accounted  as  righteousness,  and  there  are  sung  in  many  of 
the  Psalms  the  praises  of  inward  righteousness,  as  purity 
of  heart,  innocence,  humility,  trust  in  God,  benevolence 
to  the  poor  and  destitute.  Side  by  side  with  the  legal 
conception  of  righteousness  are  found  in  the  canonical 
and  apochryphal  books  of  the  Jews  impassioned  expres- 
sions of  the  higher  righteousness  which  is  born  of  the 
human  sense  of  dependence  in  which  the  spirit  "  cries  out 
for  the  living  God,"  and  the  soul  pants  for  Him  in  its 
hunger  and  thirst  "  as  the  hart  panteth  for  the  water- 
brooks."'*  Even  when,  shortly  before  the  appearance  of 
Jesus,  the  statutory  righteousness  predominated  and  the 
schools  of  the  scribes  were  flourishing,  the  book  of  Wis- 
dom represents  the  truly  righteous  man  as  one  whose  un- 
derstanding is  not  perverted  to  evil,  and  describes  him  as 
a  friend  of  mankind.f  Righteousness  consists,  according 
to  this  writer,  in  a  knowledge  of  God.J  Hillel,  an  imme- 
diate predecessor  of  Jesus  who  "  embodied  in  himself 
all  the  devotion  and  all  the  gentleness  of  Phariseeism," 
gave  expression  to  some  conceptions  of  ethical  right- 
eousness which  for  the  times  were  broad  and  liberal, 
perhaps  even  lax,  especially  in  respect  to  divorce. 
Words  very  similar  to  the  Golden  Rule  of  Jesus  are 
attributed  to  him :  "  What  thou  wouldst  not  have 
another  do  to  thee  do  not  thou  to  another."  But  his 
teaching  was  moral  rather  than  religious,  and  one  is 

*  Ps.  xlii.  i,  2. 
f  Wisdom  iv.  n,  xii.  19. 

\  TO  ydp   tTci6ra6Bai  6s   oAow/l^poS  diKaiotivvrj ,  xv.  3.     Compare 
John  xvii.  3,  "This  is  the  everlasting  life,  to  know  Thee,"  etc. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  65 

hardly  justified    in   calling  him   with    Renan    "the    true 
teacher  of  Jesus.'*  * 

The1  fundamental  opposition  of  Jesus'  ethical  concep- 
tion of  righteousness  to  that  of  the  teachers  and  the 
official  orthodoxy  of  his  time  appears  in  his  declaration  to 
his  disciples  that  unless  their  righteousness  should  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  they  should  not  en- 
ter the  kingdom  of  heaven. f  This  saying  appears  to 
be  directed  against  the  hollow  externality  and  legalism 
which  then  prevailed,  and  probably  implies  that  the  true 
righteousness  of  the  kingdom  consists  in  an  inward, 
upright  relation  to  the  law  spiritually  apprehended. 
That  its  possession  by  men  is  conditioned  on  moral 
earnestness  and  effort  is  plainly  expressed  in  the  injunc- 
tion:  "  Seek  first  His  kingdom  and  His  righteousness."  J 
Here  righteousness  is  placed  foremost  among  the  ob- 
jects to  which  the  will  should  be  directed,  just  as  in 
the  beatitude,  "  Blessed  are  they  who  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness,"  it  is  made  the  supreme  object  of 
desire.  Wherein  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  differed  from 
that  of  the  Pharisees,  and  was  in  some  respects  opposed 
to  the  Old-Testament  legislation  is  shown  in  detail  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  passages  which  emphasize 
the  contrast  between  the  external  works  and  the  internal 
disposition.§  The  false  prophets  are  such  because  "  in- 
wardly they  are  ravening  wolves."  Not  alone  the  out- 
ward act  of  homicide  is  murder,  but  the  inward  fractricidal 

*  On  Hillel  see  Geiger,  Das  Judenthum,  etc.,  I  Abth.,  1865,  pp.  104  f  ; 
Jost,  Gesch.,  iii.  pp.  in  f  ;  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  i.  pp.  268  f  ;  Toy,  Judaism, 
etc.,  pp.  264  f. 

fMatt.  v.  20. 

\  dinaiotivvrf  avrov  [Oeou],  i.e.  the  righteousness  required  by  God  and 
acceptable  to  Him,  not  that  given  by  Him. 


66          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

hatred.  The  lustful  desire  is  adulterous.*  Profanity  is 
rather  the  levity  with  which  the  name  of  God  is  employed 
than  the  solemn  oath.  The  marriage-tie  is  sacred,  and 
should  not  be  violated  by  taking  advantage  of  the  legal 
permission  of  divorce.  Not  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth,  but  rather  the  endurance  of  wrong  than  the 
returning  of  evil  for  evil.  What  was"  said  to  those  of  old 
time,"  is  surpassed  by  the  great  commandment :  "  Love 
your  enemies  and  pray  for  those  who  persecute  you."f  It 
is  not  enough  to  bring  the  gift  to  the  altar,  but  it  must  be 
brought  in  a  spirit  of  reconciliation  with  the  "  brother  "  who 
has  "  aught  against  "  the  worshipper.  There  is  no  recon- 
ciliation with  God  to  him  who  loves  not  his  fellow-man.;); 
Indeed,  the  prominence  given  to  men's  duties  to  one 
another  in  Jesus'  exposition  of  righteousness  both  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  elsewhere  may  be  regarded  as 
a  distinguishing  and  original  feature  of  his  teaching.  In 
answering  the  scribe  who  asked  him  which  was  the  great- 
est commandment,  he  mentions  not  one  commandment 
but  two,  and  does  not  appear  to  subordinate  that  of  love 
to  man  to  the  former,  but  to  place  the  two  upon  an  equal 
footing  as  "  like  "  to  each  other.  §  In  this  answer  he  not 

*  Nam  scelus  infra  se  taciturn  qui  cogitat  ullum, 
Facti  crinien  habel — 

For  he  who  meditates  any  secret  wickedness  within  himself  incurs  the  guilt 
of  the  deed,  Juv.  Sat.  xiii.  209. 

f  The  commandment  to  hate  one's  enemies  is  not  contained  in  Lev.  xix. 
18,  and  seems  rather  to  be  foisted  upon  the  law  by  an  inference  from  its  spirit 
than  anywhere  found  in  it.  That  the  law  commanded  hatred  of  an  enemy 
is  said  by  Meyer  to  be  "  a  false  imputation."  Accords  with  this  great  in- 
junction have  been  observed  in  Pindar,  Pyth.  ix.  95;  Sophocles,  Antig.  523; 
M.  Antonin.  vii.  70. 

\  See  i  John  iv.  20:  "  For  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath 
seen,"  etc. 

§  Mark  xii.  28-31;  Matt.  xxii.  34-40. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  6/ 

only  goes  beyond  the  question,  but  beyond  the  law  itself 
which  did  not  place  the  two  commandments  in  such  a 
relation.  Besides  there  is  implied  in  his  answer  that  these 
two  commandments  are  not  first  and  greatest  in  the  sense 
of  standing  at  the  head  of  a  series,  but  that  in  them 
are  included  the  whole  law  and  all  the  admonitions  of 
the  prophets.  But  the  most  striking,  the  profoundest, 
and  most  original  feature  of  Jesus'  teaching  of  righteous- 
ness towards  man  appears  in  the  point  of  view  from 
which  he  regards  and  presents  it.  The  reason  why  men 
should  practise  love  and  helpfulness  toward  one  another, 
the  motive  which  should  prompt  a  benevolent  disposition 
and  activity,  is  the  paternal  love  of  God  for  men.  Because 
God  loves  men,  He  takes  pleasure  in  their  love  of  one 
another,  which  must  be  cherished  by  them  if  they  would 
be  true  children  of  the  heavenly  Father.  Helpfulness, 
mercy,  and  forgiveness  are  not  to  be  extended  merely  to 
those  who  practise  them,  but  to  those  who  may  not  render 
like  services  in  return,  and  even  to  strangers,  foreigners, 
and  enemies.*  That  he  who  expects  the  divine  clemency 
must  show  mercy  toward  his  fellow-man  is  taught  in  the 
parable  of  the  servant  who  having  been  forgiven  a  debt 
proceeded  to  exact  payment  of  an  obligation  due  him  from 
a  fellow-servant.  The  condemnation  of  the  master  falls 
upon  him.  Gratitude  towards  the  forgiving  master  should 
have  prompted  in  him  like  sentiments  and  deeds  of 
mercy.  Likeness  to  God  is  the  supreme  requirement 
that  is  made  of  man.  It  were  certainly  an  error  to  seek 
to  establish  the  originality  of  Jesus  and  his  progress  be- 
yond the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  by  appealing  to 
his  extension  of  the  doctrine  of  kindness  beyond  the 
national  limits  and  the  giving  to  it  of  a  universal  applica- 
*  Matt.  v.  43-48. 


68          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

tion.  For  the  duty  of  kindness  to  strangers  and  even 
enemies  is  by  no  means  foreign  to  Old-Testament  morals*; 
and  the  principles  of  general  benevolence  had  been  en- 
forced by  heathen  philosophers  before  his  time,  so  that 
the  doctrine  of  love  toward  all  men  was  previous  to  his 
promulgation  of  it  the  common  property  of  the  noblest 
thinkers.  The  peculiar,  the  original  contribution  which 
Jesus  made  to  this  department  of  ethics  consists  in  the 
setting  in  which  he  placed  the  duty  of  universal  love,  or 
perhaps  better,  in  the  foundation  on  which  he  established 
it,  when  he  gave  it  a  religious  significance  and  sanction 
by  enjoining  it  as  a  duty  for  men  on  the  ground  of 
the  divine  love  toward  them,  a  duty  the  discharge  of 
which  makes  them  the  spiritual  children  of  their  Father 
in  heaven.  In  this  apprehension  of  man's  relation  to  his 
fellow-man  there  is  neither  any  place  for  a  prayer  to  God 
for  revenge  on  one's  enemies,  like  that  of  the  imprecatory 
Psalms,  nor  for  bitter  feelings  of  vengeance  in  the  heart. 
The  vast  difference  between  the  desire  to  heap  coals  of 
fire  on  the  head  of  an  enemy,  that  is,  to  bring  the  blush 
of  shame  to  his  face,  and  the  consciousness  that  if  we  fail 
in  love  and  kindness  toward  him  we  have  ourselves  been 
unfaithful  to  a  great  obligation,  and  have  not  the  spirit 
of  our  Father  in  us,  indicates  the  immense  advance  which 
Jesus  made  in  the  conception  and  founding  of  the  duty 
of  man's  love  to  his  fellow-man. 

The  fact  of  this  religious  grounding  of  righteousness 
toward  men  naturally  leads  to  the  consideration  of  the  reli- 
gious aspect  of  Jesus'  conception  of  righteousness  in  gen- 
eral, or  to  his  doctrine  of  righteousness  toward  God.  For  if 

*  See  Ex.  xxiii.  4  f,  19  f  ;  Lev.  xix.  9  f,  18,  33  f  ;  Deut.  x.  18,  xv.  7-11. 
xxiv.  17  f  ;  Ps.  vii.  5,  xli.  2  ;  Job  xxxi.  1-22,  29-32  ;  Prov.  xx.  22,  xxiv. 
29,  xxv.  21  f  ;  Isa.  Iviii.  6  f  ;  Zech.  vii.  9  f. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  69 

his  teaching  regarding  men's  duty  to  one  another  did  not  end 
with  the  Golden  Rule  and  with  moral  precepts  in  general, 
neither  did  he  limit  righteousness  to  human  relations  con- 
sidered under  a  moral-religious  aspect.  In  a  word,  he  did 
not  teach  and  exemplify  morals  only,  but  religion  also. 
He  nowhere  formulates  the  principle  that  morality  cannot 
attain  the  greatest  strength,  permanence,  and  fruitfulness 
without  religious  sanction,  conviction,  and  fervor;  but 
this  principle  is  implied  in  his  teaching  and  illustrated  in 
his  life.  His  own  trust  in  God  was  unconditioned,  and 
sometimes  assumed  paradoxical  and  extravagant  expres- 
sions. His  spiritual  life  was  lived  in  an  atmosphere  of 
prayer.  To  the  storm-tossed  disciples  he  puts  the  reprov- 
ing questions:  "  Why  are  ye  so  fearful?  How  is  it  that 
ye  have  not  faith  ?  "  To  the  anxious  ruler  of  the  synagogue 
he  exclaims:  "  Fear  not,  only  believe."  He  assures  his 
disciples  with  sublime  confidence  in  God  that  "  all  things 
whatever  ye  pray  for  and  ask,  believe  that  ye  have  ob- 
tained, and  ye  shall  have  them."  *  He  does  not  transcend, 
but  he  interprets,  the  law  when  he  declares  that  its 
"weightier  matters"  are  "justice,  mercy,  and  faith. "f 
The  right  attitude  toward  the  "  glad  tidings "  of  the 
kingdom  is  to  "  repent  and  believe."  \  The  trust  in  God 
which  he  enjoins  is,  indeed,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  abounds,  particularly  in  the  Psalms,  in 
similar  expressions,  but  it  receives  through  him  a  new 
interpretation  by  reason  of  his  conception  of  the  Deity. 
In  his  truly  original  apprehension  of  religion  the  old, 
haunting  "spirit  of  bondage"  is  banished,  and  no  longer 
does  a  tone  of  anxious  legalism  and  of  a  hesitating,  un- 
quiet fear  color  the  communion  of  the  soul  with  God. 

*  Mark  iv.  40,  vi.  36,  xi.  23.  f  Matt,  xxiii.  23. 

\  Mark  i.  15. 


70          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

The  Father  is  no  remote  and  awful  Majesty,  and  the  wor- 
shipper is  not  tortured  with  the  fear  that  He  will  "  turn 
from  "  him.  Rather  He  is  the  all-pervading,  benignant 
Presence  who  clothes  the  lilies,  notes  the  fall  of  the  spar- 
row, and  numbers  the  hairs  of  His  children's  heads.  The 
child's  trust  in  Him  may  include  in  its  simple  petition  the 
material  gift  of  needful  bread  and  the  spiritual  consum- 
mation of  His  kingdom  on  the  earth.  Between  the  Father 
who  is  so  near  and  the  child  who  is  so  dependent  and 
needy  there  exists  in  the  religion  of  Jesus  the  most  inti- 
mate relation.  There  is  no  place  for  a  mediator.  The  son 
who  returns  penitent  from  prodigality  and  riot  falls  into 
the  open  arms  of  the  Father  who  goes  forth  to  meet  him. 
This  great  idea  of  God  as  Father  involved  a  new  concep- 
tion of  righteousness  and  religion  to  which  the  interven- 
tion of  priest  and  sacrificial  atonement  is  unknown — a 
conception  to  which  Hebraism  did  not  quite  attain,  and 
which  Paul  unhappily  missed.  Here  is  no  righteousness 
"  by  faith,"  nor  through  saying  "  LoVd,  Lord,"  but  he 
alone  is  "  accounted  "  righteous  who  does  the  will  of  the 
Father  in  heaven.*  The  demand  is  great,  and  is  nothing 
short  of  imitating  the  divine  perfections,  becoming  per- 
fect as  the  Father  is  perfect,  but  nothing  is  said  of  the 
impossibility  of  such  an  achievement.  Man  is  to  cast 
himself  upon  God  in  trust  and  love,  to  hear  the  words  of 
Jesus  and  do  them,  to  pray  for  forgiveness  of  his  tres- 
passes, and  to  follow  the  Master  bearing  his  yoke  and 
burden.  Little  account  appears  to  be  made  of  a  righteous- 
ness without  flaws,  and  nothing  is  intimated  of  "  imputing 
righteousness  without  works,"  f  but  great  stress  is  laid 
upon  the  disposition,  the  direction  of  the  will  to  right 
doing,  great  sympathy  is  shown  for  the  weak,  the  fallen, 

*  Matt.  vii.   21-27.  f  Rom.  iv.  6. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  71 

the  lost,*  great  joy  is  expressed  over  the  return  of  a  sin- 
ner to  righteousness,f  he  who  holds  'the  creed  of  love  to 
God  and  man  is  declared  to  be  "  not  far  from  the  king- 
dom of  God,"  \  and  the  penitent  publican  who  with  down- 
cast eyes  smites  his  breast  and  confesses  his  sins  is  held 
up  as  the  type  of  man  for  whom  there  is  hope.  No  beati- 
tude is  pronounced  upon  those  who  may  have  become 
righteous  by  a  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  law,  nor  upon  any 
who  by  a  divine  decree  may  have  been  "  declared  "  right- 
eous on  account  of  u  faith,"  for  such  a  righteousness  is 
unknown  to  the  original  gospel,  but  they  are  called  bless- 
ed who  are  conscious  of  their  spiritual  poverty,  and  they 
who  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  are  promised 
fulness  of  spiritual  life. 

4. — CONDITIONS   OF    ENTERING    THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

From  the  times  of  the  prophets  the  idea  of  a  moral- 
religious  renewal  had  been  connected  with  the  appearance 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  John  the  Baptizer  took  up 
the  refrain  of  his  predecessors  so  far  at  least  as  the  moral 
aspect  of  the  renewal  was  concerned.  §  A  continuation 
of  the  prophetic  message  it  was,  too,  when  both  John  and 
Jesus  announced  repentance  as  a  condition  of  enjoying 
the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  this  word  ||  implies  a  radical  change  of  mind, 
disposition,  purpose,  the  abandonment  of  a  sinful  life 
and  obedience  to  the  will  of  God.  Besides  this  moral 
transformation  he  sought  also  to  bring  about  a  change  of 
mind,  of  understanding,  respecting  the  nature  of  the 

*  Matt,  xviii.,   n  ;  Mark  xiv.,  38.          \  Mark  xii.  34. 
f  Luke  xv.  32.  §  Matt.  iii.  2  ;  Luke  iii.  11-14. 

||  juerdrota,  Matt.  ix.  13. 


72          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

kingdom  as  not  temporal,  but  spiritual ;  in  respect  to 
worship,  as  not  outward,  but  of  the  heart ;  and  in  respect 
to  the  place  which  material  possessions  and  worldly  rank 
and  power  should  hold  in  the  thought  and  life  of  men. 
In  connection  with  repentance  he  placed  the  forgiveness 
or  remission  of  sins,*  but  affixed  to  this  the  condition 
that  the  subjects  of  it  must  cherish  a  forgiving  disposition 
toward  their  fellow-men.f  Faith  is  commended;):  and 
enjoined  §  as  an  attitude  of  mind  favorable  to  a  right 
life,  and  it  is  mentioned  as  a  condition  of  receiving  certain 
benefits  from  the  healing  power  of  Jesus  and  of  perform- 
ing great  works, ||  but  no  doctrine  concerning  it  is  formu- 
lated. Faith  in  God  occupies  the  foremost  place,  and 
faith  in  Jesus,  or  belief  in  his  healing  powers,  and  in  the 
"  glad  tidings  "  is  also  required.  Closely  related  to  this 
appears  to  be  the  requirement  of  a  child-like  disposition, 
without  which  it  is  expressly  declared  that  no  one  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. If  Little  children,  who 
could  give  nothing,  but  were  in  need  of  much,  who  set  up 
no  claims  and  pretensions,  but  were  impressible  and  recep- 
tive, not  only  called  forth  the  love  and  the  blessing  of 
Jesus,  but  were  regarded  by  him  as  having  the  disposi- 
tion which  in  men  was  required  for  entering  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Not  self-sufficiency,  consciousness  of  merit,  and 
pride  of  knowledge,  but  receptivity,  and  the  sense  of  need 
and  dependence,  constitute  the  disposition  of  the  true 
disciple.  Nothing  appears  to  be  more  characteristic  of 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  than  his  sympathy  with  the  weak,  the 
dependent,  the  needy, — those  to  whom  much  might  be 

*  aq>E6i<9  TGOV  d/^apriwv.  -f  Matt.  vi.  12,  14,  15. 

J  Matt.  viii.  10.  §  Mark  i.  15,  xi.  22. 

|  Matt.  ix.  22  ;  Mark  v.  34 ;  Luke  vii.  50,  viii.  48,  xvii.  6. 
^[  Mark  x.  14. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  73 

given  and  forgiven.  Hence  the  blessing  upon  "  the 
poor/'  or  as  one  of  the  evangelists  has  it,  "  the  poor  in 
spirit,"  upon  those  whose  sense  of  spiritual  need  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  words  "  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness," and  upon  those  who  weep,  and  those  who  are 
hated.*  Had  not  the  kingdom  of  heaven  come  that  the 
hungry  might  be  fed,  the  poor  have  the  Gospel  preached 
to  them,  those  who  longed  for  righteousness  satisfied 
with  the  bread  of  life,  the  weeping  be  made  to  rejoice, 
and  the  mourners  be  comforted  ?  Not,  indeed,  as  one  of 
the  old  prophets  risen  from  the  dead,  but  in  the  spirit  of 
the  great  writer  of  the  second  Isaiah  did  the  Prophet  of 
this  new  kingdom  of  God  associate  with  publicans  and 
sinners,  and  proclaim  himself  the  Saviour  of  those  who 
needed  a  physician,  come  to  seek  and  reclaim  the  lost.f 
But  while  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  to  be  earned  by  a 
perfect  righteousness ;  while  the  poor  and  the  weak  are 
received  into  it  with  a  divine  welcome  ;  and  while  sinners 
are  sought  out  to  partake  of  its  abundant  hospitalities  ; 
there  is  still  no  abatement  of  the  requirement  not  only  of 
repentance  but  also  of  earnest  striving.  The  kingdom 
is,  indeed,  a  free  gift,  but  it  must  be  sought  with  strong 
desire  and  resolute  will.  It  is  not  to  be  passively 
accepted,  but  rather  "  suffers  violence,-"  and  "  the  violent 
seize  upon  it."J  If  those  who  will  not  accept  its  invita- 

*  Luke  vi.  20-22  ;  Matt.  v.  3-6.  It  was  "the  poor"  who  according  to 
the  Old-Testament  promise  were  to  be  blessed  in  the  happy  future  time, 
and  the  third  evangelist  gives  the  beatitude  accordingly  (vi.  20,  cf.  iv.  18, 
vii.  22).  Did  he  derive  it  from  a  text  antecedent  to  that  of  the  first  Gospel  ? 
(See  Feine,  Eine  vorkan.  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas,  1891,  p.  113.)  The 
first  evangelist  adds  "  in  spirit,"  referring  to  those  who  as  to  their  inner  life 
(jtvEVjuari)  are  in  a  condition  of  poverty.  This  is  also  an  Old-Testament 
conception.  See  Ps.  cxxxi.  I  ;  Is.  Ixvi.  2. 

f  Luke  iv.  16-18  ;  Mark  ii.  16,  17.  J  Matt.  xi.  12. 


74          THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

tion  are  excluded,*  no  less  is  he  shut  out  in  the  darkness 
who  by  leaving  off  the  wedding-garment  fails  to  fulfil  its 
conditions.f 

These  conditions  appear  in  the  culmination  of  their 
absoluteness  and  severity  in  the  teaching  regarding 
renunciation  for  the  ^sake  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The 
great  requirement  of  righteousness,  the  service  of  God 
and  man,  takes  unconditional  precedence,  and  whatever 
is  inconsistent  with  it  must  be  renounced.  The  less  must 
be  sacrificed  to  the  greater,  the  material  to  the  spiritual 
interests.  Whoever  tries  to  save  and  serve  both  will  lose 
all.  But  he  who  will  lose  his  life  for  Jesus'  sake  and  the 
gospel's  will  save  it.  \  The  entrance  to  life  is  through  a 
"narrow  door"§  which  is  found  only  by  the  few  who 
are  willing  to  abandon  the  broad  and  easy  way  of  self- 
indulgence  and  submit  to  the  hardship  and  renunciation 
required  by  the  law  of  unselfish  service.  A  man  cannot 
serve  two  masters,  ||  and  the  righteousness  which  claims 
the  whole  man  for  the  will  of  God  excludes  devotion  to 
earthly  goods  for  their  own  sake.  He  who  will  attain  it 
must  be  ready  to  stake  all  lesser  values  on  the  one 
supreme  achievement,  as  the  merchant  in  the  parable 
"  sold  all  that  he  had'"  in  order  to  buy  the  "  one  pearl  of 
great  price."  T  The  principle  of  renunciation  receives  its 
most  uncompromising  and  harshest  expression  in  the  pas- 
sage in  the  third  Gospel  which  represents  Jesus  as  turning 
to  a  multitude  who  were  going  with  him  and  declaring 
the  condition  of  discipleship  to  be  that  one  must  hate 
one's  father  and  mother  and  wife  and  children  and 
brothers  and  sisters,  yea,  and  one's  own  life  also,  and 

*  Luke  xiv.  16-24.  f  Matt.  xxii.  n. 

\  Mark  viii.  35.  §  Matt.  vii.  13  f. 

\  Luke  xvi.  13.  ^[  Matt.  xiii.  44-46. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  75 

that  all  that  one  hath  must  be  forsaken.*  He  who  would 
be  his  disciple  must  be  willing  to  bear  his  "  cross  "  and 
come  after  him.  The  terrible  significance  of  this  word 
"  cross  "  in  that  time,  when  it  was  used  as  an  instrument 
of  the  most  cruel  death,  indicates  the  extreme  act  of 
renunciation  which  is  here  implied.  Milder  than  this 
demand,  yet  conceived  in  the  same  spirit,  is  the  require- 
ment contained  in  the  other  two  synoptics  to  pluck  out 
an  eye  or  cut  off  a  hand  or  a  foot  if  either  prevent  one 
from  entering  into  life,  rather  than  having  all  one's 
members  to  be  cast  into  gehenna.f  Of  the  rich  young 
man  who  would  "  inherit  everlasting  life,"  and  had  kept 
all  the  commandments,  the  requirement  is  made  to  sell 
all  that  he  had  and  give  to  the  poor,  in  order  to  supply 
the  one  thing  lacking.  J  To  one  who  offered  to  follow 
him,  Jesus  intimated  in  most  pathetic  terms  that  his 
followers  might  envy  the  foxes  and  the  birds,  which  had 
their  lodging-places,  while  he  "  had  not  where  to  lay  his 
head."  To  another,  summoned  to  discipleship,  who  would 
first  bury  his  father,  the  harsh  answer  is  made  :  "  Let  the 
dead  bury  their  own  dead,  but  go  thou  and  carry  the 
tidings  of  the  kingdom  of  God."  Not  even  a  farewell  to 
the  loved  ones  is  permitted,  but  "  no  one  that  looketh 
back  after  putting  his  hand  to  the  plow  is  fit  for  the 
kingdom  of  God."  § 

The  difficulties  which  some  of  these  passages  present  are 
evident  at  a  glance,  and  the  efforts  which  commentators 
have  made  to  soften  their  harshness  show  the  necessity 
which  is  felt  of  reconciling  them  in  some  way  with  modern 
sentiments  and  with  other  teachings  of  Jesus.  The 

*  Luke  xiv.  25,  33.  f  Matt.  v.  29,  30  ;  Mark  ix.  43-48. 

\  Matt.  xix.  16-23  ;  Mark  x.  17-23  ;  Luke  xix.  18-23. 
§  Matt.  viii.  19-22  ;  Luke  ix.  57-62. 


76          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

requirement  to  hate  one's  nearest  kindred  in  order  to 
become  a  disciple  is  revolting  to  the  most  sacred  feelings 
of  the  human  heart,  and  the  judgment  rejects  it  in  the 
teaching  of  one  in  whose  instructions  love  of  all  men,  the 
honoring  of  parents,  and  the  sacredness  of  the  ties  of 
family  held  a  conspicuous  place.*  The  asceticism  implied 
in  contempt  of  one's  own  life  is  incompatible  with  a 
teaching  which  demands  all  the  powers  of  man  for  the 
service  of  God  in  a  kingdom  of  righteousness  whose  course 
and  development  were  to  be  in  human  society.f  The 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  break  the  natural 
force  of  these  demands  are  for  the  most  part  unwarrant- 
able exegetical  expedients.  It  is  maintained,  for  example, 
that  "  hate"  is  not  used  in  its  ordinary  sense,  but  means 
"  the  direction  of  the  will  to  the  separation  from  others 
as  the  opposite  of  natural  love  "  ;  that  these  words  were 
not  spoken  with  reference  to  a  time  like  ours  when  the 
doctrines  of  Jesus  have  won  a  wide  recognition  and 
dominion  in  the  world,  but  at  a  time  when  it  was  neces- 
sary to  stake  all  that  a  man  had  for  the  sake  of  the 
Gospel;  and  that  it  was  the  method  of  Jesus  to  state  his 
requirements  with  the  utmost  clearness  and  brevity.:): 
The  fact  is  not  without  importance  that  Luke  alone  has 
the  harsh  demand  to  hate  one's  dearest  kindred.  In  the 
first  Gospel  words  bearing  a  resemblance  to  these  demand 
that  one  should  not  love  father  or  mother  "  more  "  than 
Jesus,§  and  in  themselves  they  present  no  difficulty,  since 
they  are  in  accordance  with  the  general  teaching  of  Jesus 

*  Mark  vii.  10  f,  x.  1-12  ;  Matt.  v.  31  f. 

f  Matt.  xi.  19  ;  Mark  ii.  18  f. 

\  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  pp.  383-386.  Meyer,  however,  does  not 
approve  of  the  softening  of  fj.i6tl  in  the  passage  in  question.  Commentar, 
5te,  Ausg.  i.  2,  p.  464.  So  also  Grimm-Wilke,  Clavis  N.  T.  sub  voce. 

§  Matt.  x.  37. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  77 

that  spiritual  aims  and  interests  should  be  regarded  as 
supreme  whenever  a  choice  is  to  be  made  between  them 
and  any  temporal  concerns  whatever.  They  express,  then, 
a  universal  truth  which  is  applicable  to  an  age  of  peace  as 
well  as  to  an  age  of  conflict.  The  words  in  Luke,  how- 
ever, appear  to  be  rather  an  intensified  expression  of  this 
thought  than  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus,  who  never  required 
of  his  immediate  disciples  the  breaking  of  sacred  ties  of 
kindred,  and  to  whose  whole  teaching  hatred  in  any  form 
is  opposed.  Wendt's  remark  that  they  have  especially  a 
temporal  application  suggests  the  thought  that  they  may 
be  the  vehement  and  extravagant  expression  of  the  feel- 
ings prevalent  in  a  later  period  of  storm  and  stress. 

The  requirement  of  the  rich  young  man  to  sell  all  that 
he  had  and  give  to  the  poor  as  a  condition  of  inheriting 
everlasting  life  has  the  peculiarity  that  in  some  cases  more 
is  needful  than  to  keep  the  commandments.  Similar 
instances  of  special  requirements  in  particular  cases  appear 
to  be  those  of  the  man  who  was  not  permitted  to  return 
to  bury  his  father  and  of  him  who  was  forbidden  to  take 
leave  of  his  family.  Assuming  that  these  are  words  of 
Jesus  (and  there  appears  to  be  no  good  reason  for  doubt- 
ing their  genuineness),  we  are  not  warranted  in  conclud- 
ing from  them  that  the  general  conditions  of  discipleship 
were  equally  severe  and  harsh.  We  do  not  find  that 
Peter  was  required  to  give  up  his  house,  although  he  was 
an  immediate  follower  of  the  Master  who  had  not  where 
to  lay  his  head.  In  the  case  of  the  rich  young  man  there 
may  have  been  especial  reasons  for  requiring  the  sacrifice 
of  his  possessions,  for  according  to  one  of  the  accounts  it 
appears  that,  whether  from  a  consciousness  of  moral  defi- 
ciency, or  from  what  he  saw  in  the  searching  look  of  the 
Master,  he  asked  :  "  What  lack  I  yet?"  The  demand  of 


78          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Jesus  was  doubtless  better  fitted  to  his  need  than  to  his 
inclination.  The  rich  enter  with  difficulty  the  kingdom 
of  the  spiritual  life.  That  it  were  better  for  one  not  to 
turn  back  among  the  spiritually  dead  mourners  to  assist 
in  burying  the  dead,  and  for  another  not  to  take  the  risk 
of  a  farewell  to  those  whom  he  loved,  may  fairly  be  pre- 
sumed, just  as  in  some  it  might  have  been  commendable 
to  follow  the  example  of  Jesus  and  not  marry,  "  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven's  sake."  * 

5. — GOD    AS   THE    FATHER. 

That  the  Jewish  literature  antecedent  to  Jesus  furnished 
substantially  the  basis  of  his  teaching  concerning  God  has 
already  been  pointed  out.  But  as  his  conception  of 
righteousness  was  a  new  creation  of  an  old  idea,  so  it  is 
with  his  doctrine  of  God.  The  Old-Testament  idea  is 
retained,  and  the  manner  of  expressing  it  is  not  new.  God 
is  Creator,  King,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth.  He  has  His 
throne  in  the  heavens,  where  the  angels  behold  His  face, 
and  the  earth  is  His  footstool,  f  The  God  of  Jesus  is  no 
impersonal  abstraction,  but  a  personality  possessing  quali- 
ties similar  to  those  of  men.  He  has  a  spirit,  acts  accord- 
ing to  what  seems  good  to  Him,  that  is,  thinks,  has  a  will, 
and  is  good.  \  His  providence  is  over  all,  even  to  the  birds 
and  the  grass  and  the  lilies,  but  particularly  over  man,  the 
crown  of  His  creation,  the  immortal,  capable  of  evil  and 
good,  and  having  light  within  himself.  §  To  him  God  is 
merciful  and  kind,  shows  His  goodness  even  to  the  sinner  to 

*  Matt.  xix.  12. 

f  Matt.  xi.  25,  v.  34-35,  xxiii.  22,  xviii.  10. 
\  Matt.  x.  20,  xvi.  23,  xix.  17,  xxvi.  39. 
§  Matt.  vi.  22,  26,  28,  x.  28. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  79 

whom  He  gives  the  sun  and  the  rain,  hears  prayer,  observes 
the  servant,  forgives,  and  like  a  good  shepherd  will  not  let 
His  lost  sheep  go,  but  rejoices  more  over  one  astray  found 
than  over  ninety  and  nine  in  the  fold.  *  The  crown  of 
all  His  attributes,  or  rather  the  essence  of  His  nature,  as 
Jesus  represents  Him  is  His  Fatherhood.  The  repetition, 
the  fond  dwelling  upon  the  word  Father,  shows  its  impor- 
tance, its  preciousness,  in  the  thought  and  the  heart  of 
Jesus.  To  him  it  is  not  a  figure,  but  represents  a  divine 
reality.  It  does  not  stand  for  a  shadow  of  a  human  rela- 
tion, but  for  a  fact  above  and  before  all.  God  is  the 
Father  who  is  in  heaven, f  Father  absolutely.  The  advance 
of  the  thought  of  Jesus  beyond  the  average  Jewish  con- 
ception is  apparent  in  the  extension  of  his  idea  of  God  as 
Father  so  as  to  include  all  men  in  the  divine  family  as 
subjects  of  the  paternal  interest  and  love.  Not  only  did 
he  teach  his  disciples  to  pray  to  God  as  their  Father,  but 
he  calls  Him  "  your  Father"  in  addressing  the  people,  \ 
and  teaches  that  as  such  He  cares  for  all  and  even  gives 
His  holy  Spirit  to  all  who  ask  Him.  §  With  a  wonderful 
tenderness  he  includes  "  the  little  ones  "  within  the  scope 
of  the  Father's  solicitude,  whose  will  it  is  that  not  one  of 
them  should  perish.  A  general  fatherhood  is  implied  in 
a  passage  which  defines  a  special  sonship,  as  when  he 
enjoins  upon  his  hearers  to  love  their  enemies,  that  they 

*  Matt.  v.  45,  vi.  14,  vii.  7,  xviii.  12. 

\  6  itarrfp  vjuoav  6  kv  rot's  ovpavolS,  i.  e.,  distinguished  from  and 
above  earthly  fathers.  It  is  remarkable  that  except  Mark  xi.  25,  Matthew 
alone  has  this  full  expression  and  the  two  other  synoptists  appear  purposely 
to  avoid  it,  using  sometimes  simply  itarrjp,  as  is  the  case  with  Luke  even  in 
the  Lord's  Prayer.  This  fact  presents  a  strange  problem.  See  Holsten  in 
Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl.  Theologie,  1890,  pp.  129  f. 

\  Matt.  v.  45,  48,  vi.  i,  4,  6,  18,  32. 

§Matt.  vi.  31  f  ;  Luke  xi.  13. 


80          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

may  "  become  "  sons,  that  is,  moral-spiritual  imitators  of 
their  Father,  whose  sons  they  of  course  already  are  as 
objects  of  His  interest  and  love.*  That  Jesus'  universal 
conception  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  made  an  inefface- 
able impression  upon  the  tradition  of  his  teachings  is 
shown  in  the  fact  that  in  the  Jewish  first  Gospel  the  col- 
lection of  scattered  sayings  of  his  composing  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  represents  not  the  relation  of  Jahveh  to 
Israel,  but  of  the  Father  in  heaven  to  mankind.  This 
denationalizing  transformation  of  the  Jahveh-idea,  like 
that  of  the  Jewish  conception  of  righteousness,  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  of  the  Messiah,  is  a  striking  evidence 
of  the  greatness  and  originality  of  Jesus,  in  whose  thought 
the  national  gave  place  to  the  universally  human. 

The  conception  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  as  it  was 
held  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  resulted  in  the  removal  of 
the  contradictions  which  inhered  in  the  Jewish  idea  of 
Jahveh,  and  hence  in  its  transformation  into  a  purer  and 
nobler  type.  Jahveh  was  on  the  one  hand  a  consuming 
fire,  a  jealous  God,  who  "  consumed  "  men  by  His  "  anger," 
and  "  troubled  "  them  by  His  "  wrath,"  and  who  "set 
their  iniquities  before  Him,"  their  "  secret  sins  in  the  light 
of  His  countenance,"  so  that  "  all  their  days  were  passed 
away  in  His  wrath. "f  On  the  other  hand  He  is  repre- 
sented as  "  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering  and 
abundant  in  goodness,"  and  it  is  said  that  He  "  does  not 
deal  with  us  according  to  our  sins,  nor  reward  us  accord- 
ing to  our  iniquities."^:  His  anger  was  for  the  heathen 
and  the  wicked  Jews,  and  his  mercy  for  the  theocratic  and 
faithful  of  the  chosen  people.  Only  a  few  of  the  loftier 

*  Matt.  v.  44,  45. 

•   f  Ex.  xxxiv.  14  ;  Deut.  iv.  24  ;  Ps.  xc.  7-9. 
J  Ex.  xxxiv.  6  ;   Ps.  ciii.  10. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  8 1 

spirits  among  the  prophets  and  psalmists  saw  and  declared 
this  merciful  and  paternal  aspect  of  the  divine  nature, 
while  the  average  religious  consciousness  of  the  people  was 
darkened  and  troubled  with  "  a  fearful  looking-for  of  judg- 
ment." In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  contradiction  in 
question  is  resolved  by  a  bold  stroke  of  religious  genius. 
Banished  from  the  heavens  is  the  jealous  God  (6eo$ 
O/AC^TT/;),  and  in  His  place  is  enthroned  the  Saviour-God 
(dso?  OGOTVP),  the  Father  of  love  and  mercy.  This  endear- 
ing paternal  appellation  is  constantly  on  the  lips  of  Jesus 
instead  of  the  stately  "  Lord,"  and  words  expressive  of 
servitude,  fear,  and  wrath,  he  rarely  or  never  uses.*  Not 
alone  does  the  Father's  love  dispense  pity  and  forgiveness 
to  the  children,  but  surpassing  the  conception  of  a  psalm- 
ist who  sang  of  its  paternal  bestowal  upon  those  that  "  fear 
Him,"  it  is  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  a  seeking  love,  poured 
out  upon  the  wandering  and  lost,  and  satisfied  only  with 
their  recovery,  f  Well  does  the  originality  of  this 
beautiful  conception  justify  the  saying  of  Jesus  :  "  No 
one  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  it  is, 
the  will  of  the  Son  to  reveal  Him."  J 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Father  is,  more- 
over, by  no  means  a  speculative  abstraction,  but  a  fruitful 
practical  principle  which  is  brought  by  him  into  the  most 
important  relations  to  human  conduct.  As  authoritative 
requirement  on  the  one  hand  and  devoted  obedience  on 
the  other  express  the  normal  relation  of  father  and  chil- 

*  He  uses  nvpio?,  "  Lord,"  several  times  in  quotations  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, dovXo1-,,  "  servant,"  in  reference  to  the  relation  of  man  to  God 
rarely  (see  Matt,  xviii.  23-34,  xxi.  33-43),  and  dovhsvEtv,  "  to  serve,"  only 
once  (Matt.  vi.  24),  while  <pofio<3,  "  fear,"  and  opyrf,  "wrath, "he  never 
employs.  Quite  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Paul  says  :  "Ye  did  not  receive  the 
spirit  of  bondage  so  as  tc  be  again  in  fear,"  Rom.  viii.  15. 

\  Matt,  xviii.  12  f.  J:  Matt,  xi.  27. 

6 


82          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

dren,  so  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  the  divine  will  is  the  law 
which  man  is  required  to  observe.  While  the  relation  of 
:man  to  God  in  respect  to  obligation  is  sometimes  repre- 
sented as  analogous  to  that  of  servant  to  master,  and  the 
idea  of  reward  is  recognized,  the  highest,  the  one  unique 
conception  of  this  relation,  is  that  of  imitation  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Father  by  men  without  consideration  of  reward, 
but  only  that  they  may  become  true  children  of  God. 
This  method  of  spiritual  training  by  aspiration  and  inspi- 
ration is  the  practical  outcome  of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  the 
Fatherhood  of  God,  and  may  be  regarded  as  one  of  the 
most  distinctive  and  important  of  his  contributions  to 
morality  and  religion.  How  he  conceived  the  efforts  of 
man  for  union  and  harmony  with  the  Father  to  be  met 
and  responded  to  on  the  divine  side  is  most  beautifully 
and  effectively  set  forth  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son.*  The  main  thought,  the  real  purpose,  of  this  para- 
ble is  evidently  to  represent  the  paternal  disposition  of 
God  toward  man  as  a  sinner,  when  penitent  he  desires  to 
return  to  Him.  In  opposition  to  the  legalistic  idea,  ac- 
cording to  which  righteousness  alone  would  win  the  divine 
favor  and  reward,  and  all  sin  must  be  treated  with  exact 
penalty  and  without  forgiving  grace,  he  shows  by  a  beau- 
tiful touch  of  nature  how  the  paternal  love  breaks  through 
all  the  barriers  which  the  child's  transgression  had  erected, 
and  rushes  toward  the  returning  wretched  penitent  with 
abundant  gifts  and  overflowing  joy.  For  the  father  it  is 
a  sufficient  answer  to  the  unsympathetic  complaints  of 
the  elder  son,  who  in  the  parable  represents  the  legalistic 
point  of  view,  to  say  :  "  It  is  meet  that  we  should  make 
merry  and  be  glad  ;  for  this  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  is 
alive  again  ;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found."  Of  this  parable 
*  Luke  xv.  11-32. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  83 

from  the  point  of  view  of  its  ethical  value  it  should  be 
said  that  it  is  encouraging  to  sinners,  but  not  to  sin.  The 
young  man,  who  had  consumed  his  substance  in  riotous 
living,  stranded  at  length  upon  a  land  smitten  with  fam- 
ine, and  reduced  to  the  degraded  position  of  a  swineherd, 
presents  a  terrible  picture  of  the  natural  consequences  of 
transgression  which  follow  with  remorseless  certainty  un- 
checked by  any  pitying  hand.  But  that  this  inevitable 
condition  is  not  final,  that  it  is  not  without  hope,  that  out 
of  the  lowest  depths  the  penitent  sinner  may  retrace  his 
shameful  way,  is  shown  by  the  teaching  that  he  still  has  a 
longing  for  his  lost  estate  and  the  power  to  will  the  good, 
and  that  at  the  end  of  the  homeward  journey  is  the  father, 
who  will  see  him  afar  off,  and  go  forth  with  open  arms  to 
meet  him.  The  religious  aspect  of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  finds  its  highest  expression  in  this 
picture  of  a  father  yearning  for  his  long-lost  son,  and 
joyfully  preparing  royal  hospitalities  on  his  return  ;  be- 
cause of  the  love,  hope,  aspiration,  and  devotion  which 
are  implied  in  the  heart  of  the  absent  prodigal  in  the 
supreme  moment  when  he  sets  his  face  homeward.  It  is 
characteristic  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  that  by  its  teaching 
of  the  Father  it  encourages  the  wayward  and  fallen  in 
the  hour  of  shame  and  weakness  with  the  assurance  of 
waiting  love  and  forgiveness.  Not  less  important,  more- 
over, is  the  moral  aspect  of  this  paternal  idea  in  the  cor- 
ollary of  the  brotherhood  of  man.  As  children  of  God 
men  are  all  brothers,  and  the  relation  of  mutual  love  and 
kindness  is  plainly  expressed  as  a  duty  even  to  enemies, 
on  the  ground  that  God  is  "  kind  to  the  unthankful  and 
the  evil."  It  is,  accordingly,  characteristic  of  this  moral 
teaching  that  the  practice  of  brotherhood  is  not  coldly 
enjoined  as  a  duty,  and  enforced  by  the  authority  of  God, 


84          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

but  is  presented  to  men  as  a  principle  which  has  not  alone 
the  divine  sanction  but  also  the  divine  example  for  its 
support.  Thus  by  Fatherhood  in  heaven  and  Brother- 
hood on  the  earth  the  celestial  and  terrestial  realms, 
which  in  the  common  apprehension  are  widely  separated, 
are  united  in  one  great  economy  in  which  love  is  the  uni- 
versal principle.  Morality,  therefore,  becomes  a  religion, 
not  as  an  "  enthusiasm  of  humanity,"  but  as  an  aspiration 
after  godlikeness.  In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  under  the  idea  of  God  as  Father  Jesus 
has  presented  morality  and  religion  in  a  completeness  and 
elevation  never  before  attained,  in  a  beauty  and  spiritual 
power  than  which  it  seems  impossible  for  the  human  mind 
to  conceive  a  greater  and  more  effective. 

6. — JESUS'    ATTITUDE    TOWARD    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 

How  Jesus  in  his  teaching  of  righteousness,  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  of  morals  and  religion  in  general, 
proceeded  upon  the  recognition  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
of  his  nation,  but  transformed  and  exalted  them,  has 
already  been  shown  in  several  instances.  There  remain, 
however,  to  be  considered  a  few  passages  in  which  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  is  particularly  indicated.  The 
importance  of  the  subject  to  an  understanding  of  the 
spirit  and  method  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  warrants  a 
separate  treatment  in  a  small  space  at  least.  It  is  to  be 
noted  in  the  first  place  that  in  many  cases  he  speaks  like 
a  Jew  of  his  time  in  appealing  to  the  Old  Testament  as 
an  authority.  He  recognizes  the  validity  of  "  the  com- 
mandments of  God  "  when  he  charges  the  Pharisees  with 
laying  them  aside  in  order  to  keep  their  tradition,  by 
which  they  "  make  void  the  word  of  God.*  He  recog- 

*  Mark  vii.  7-17. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  85 

nizes  "  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law  "  as  binding  in 
reproving  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  for  omitting  them.* 
In  answering  certain  Sadducees  regarding  the  resurrection 
he  appeals  somewhat  vaguely  to  "  the  book  of  Moses," 
employing,  indeed,  a  very  peculiar  method  of  argumenta- 
tion.f  To  the  important  question,  "  Which  is  the  great 
commandment  of  the  law  ? "  he  replies  by  quotations 
from  the  Pentateuch,  and  when  asked  by  the  rich  young 
man  the  way  to  everlasting  life,  he  refers  him  to  the 
Decalogue.  \  In  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus,  it  is  implied  that  hearing  Moses  and  the 
prophets  would  save  the  brothers  of  the  former  from 
his  fate  in  Hades.  §  He  defends  himself  against  the 
charge  of  violating  the  sabbath  by  an  appeal  to  David's 
example  and  "  the  law,"  and  strengthens  his  argument  by 
a  quotation  from  Hosea.  ||  There  are  several  other  pas- 
sages of  similar  import  which  might  be  quoted. 

On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  often  employs  words  which 
indicate  a  direct  or  indirect  deviation  of  his  teaching 
from  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  some  instances 
he  places  himself  in  pointed  opposition  to  the  teachings 
which  had  been  given  to  those  "  of  old  time."  Although 
in  the  matter  of  violating  the  sabbath  he  appeals,  as 
already  remarked,  to  the  Scriptures,  he  yet  lays  down  a 
general  rule  regarding  the  purpose  of  this  day  which  goes 
far  beyond  the  question  of  disregarding  the  letter  of  the 
sabbath-law  in  exceptional  cases,  and  maintains  the  right 
of  private  judgment  as  to  how  the  day  shall  be  observed 
in  the  interest  of  man.  With  the  bold  declaration  that 
"The  Son  of  Man  is  lord  also  of  the  sabbath,"  he 

*  Matt,  xxiii.  23.  f  Mark  xii.  24-27. 

\  Matt.  xii.  28-31  ;  Mark  x.  19.  §  Luke  xvi.  29. 

I  Matt.  xii.  3-8. 


86         THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

declines  for  himself  and  his  disciples  subjection  to  the 
requirements  for  the  observance  of  the  day  sanctioned 
by  the  Old-Testament  legislation.*  He  invalidates  in 
principle  that  part  of  the  ancient  code  which  relates  to 
defilement  from  external  contact  by  the  declaration  that 
"  Nothing  that  entereth  into  a  man  from  without  can  de- 
file him."  f  With  regard  to  divorce  he  says  that  the 
Mosaic  permission  of  it  was  given  on  account  of  the 
hardness  of  men's  hearts,  and  thus  accords  to  the  law 
only  a  transient  and  temporary  value,  as  not  consistent 
with  the  real  will  of  God  in  respect  to  marriage.  \  He 
gives  a  new  reading  to  the  law  against  adultery,  and  puts 
into  it  a  meaning  which  was  not  contemplated  in  the 
original,  or  rather  supplements  it  by  a  new  injunction  ;§ 
and  as  to  the  law  of  retaliation,  he  unqualifiedly  abro- 
gates it,  and  sets  over  against  it  a  rule  of  non-resistance 
which  is  expressed  in  the  most  extreme  terms.  |  Besides, 
it  is  evident  that  he  conceived  the  prophetic  promises  of 
the  future  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  an  entirely 
different  way  from  that  of  the  Old-Testament  writers, 
and  that  he  completely  transformed  the  Messiah-idea  of 
the  prophets. 

The  recognition  of  and  appeal  to  the  law  and  the  de- 
preciation and  rejection  of  it,  which  appear  in  the  passages 
just  quoted,  present  a  difficulty  similar  to  that  contained 
in  the  celebrated  section  of  the  first  Gospel,  in  which  Jesus 
appears  to  speak  from  a  point  of  view  of  extreme  legalism 
in  immediate  connection  with  sayings  expressing  great 
freedom  and  boldness  in  dealing  with  the  law.^f  The 
words  are :  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law 

*  Mark  ii.  23-28.  \  Mark  vii.  15. 

\  Mark  x.  2-10.  §  Matt.  v.  27,  28. 

|  Matt.  v.  38-43.  1  Matt.  v.  17-20. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  8/ 

or  the  prophets:  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For 
truly  do  I  say  to  you,  Not  till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away 
shall  one  jot  or  one  tittle  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  ful- 
filled. Whoever  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  will  be  called  the  least  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  whoever  shall  do  and  teach 
them,  he  will  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
For  I  say  to  you,  Unless  your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  will  not  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  The  proper  interpretation  of  this 
passage  in  its  connection  will  perhaps  solve  the  difficulty 
presented  by  the  apparently  contradictory  passages  in  ques- 
tion. The  question  on  which  the  exegesis  of  the  passage 
depends  is,  What  did  Jesus  mean  by  saying  that  he  came  to 
"  fulfil  "  *  the  law  and  the  prophets  ?  This  word  may 
mean  in  reference  to  a  promise  or  a  prophecy  the  accom- 
plishment of  it  by  the  actual  production  of  the  thing 
promised.  But  that  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  here  is 
evident  from  the  connection,  in  which  the  discourse  is  of 
righteousness  and  not  at  all  of  Jesus'  fulfilment  of 
prophecy.  There  are  two  strong  objections  to  giving  to 
"fulfil  "  the  sense  "  to  cause  God's  will  as  made  known  in 
the  law  to  be  obeyed  as  it  should  be  "  :  f  first,  that  since 
M  law  "  in  the  passage  must  mean  the  whole  law,  that  is, 
the  ceremonial  as  well  as  the  moral,  Jesus  is  made  by  this 
interpretation  to  declare  in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the 
spirit  of  his  teachings  that  he  came  to  further  the  observ- 
ance of  the  former;  and  second,  that  the  antithesis  of  the 
two  clauses  is  not  preserved,  for  the  word  translated  "  to 
destroy  "  J  must  mean  not  "  to  violate,"  the  opposite  of 


* 

f  Grimm-Wilke's,  Clavis  N.  T.  sub  voce 

%  KaraXvtiai. 


88          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"  obey,"  but  "  to  abrogate,"  declare  or  make  void.  This 
is  the  function  of  one  who  has  legislative  authority.  If, 
then,  we  understand  "fulfil"  in  a  sense  which  makes  it  a 
proper  antithesis  to  "  abrogate,"  the  interpretation  results 
which  gives  to  the  passage  the  meaning:  "  I  came  not  to 
invalidate,  but  to  establish  and  complete  the  law  and  the 
prophets  as  teachers  of  righteousness."  *  Such  may  very 
well  have  been  the  words  of  one  who  impressed  the  people 
as  speaking  with  authority,  and  they  are  consistent  with 
Jesus'  general  attitude  toward  the  law  in  the  apparently 
contradictory  passages  previously  referred  to.  In  fact, 
the  contradiction  which  they  seem  to  present  disappears 
in  the  light  of  this  attitude  of  freedom  and  authority 
toward  the  Old  Testament,  assumed  by  one  who  was 
great  enough  to  recognize  and  accept  what  was  of  perma- 
nent value  in  this  record  and  to  complete  its  teachings  by 
adding  new  precepts  and  transforming  old  ideas  by  fresh 
interpretations.  His  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
then,  was  their  completion  by  establishing  and  supple- 
menting their  fundamental  principles — the  perfect  devel- 
opment of  their  ideal  reality  out  of  the  positive  form  in 
which  it  was  historically  contained  and  limited,  f  With 
the  intellectual  greatness  and  spiritual  freedom  which  are 
capable  of  assuming  such  an  attitude  of  independence  and* 
supremacy  toward  the  law  are  entirely  incompatible  the 
sayings  that  "  not  one  jot  [the  smallest  Hebrew  letter]  or 
tittle  [the  hook  by  which  nearly  similar  Hebrew  letters  are 
distinguished  from  one  another]  shall  pass  from  the  law 
until  all  be  fulfilled,"  and  that  rank  in  the  kingdom  of 

*  For  other  New-Testament  usage  of  ftfeppotV  in  the  sense  of  "  fill  out," 
"  complete,"  see  Luke  vii.  i  ;  John  xv.  n  ;  Acts  xii.  25,  xiv.  26  ;  2  Cor. 
x.  6  ;  i  Thess.  ii.  16  ;  2  Thess.  i.  n  ;  Phil.  ii.  2. 

f  Meyer,  Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  149.  So  substantially  Wendt,  Immer, 
Reuss,  Baur,  Keim,  and  many  others. 


THE    7^E  ACHING   OF  JESUS.  89 

heaven  is  to  be  determined  by  the  observance  or  non- 
observance  of  "  the  least  "  of  the  commandments  of  the 
law.  For  these  words  cannot  be  otherwise  fairly  interpreted 
than  as  including  the  ceremonial  prescripts  ;  and  since  it  is 
altogether  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  aim  of  Jesus  to  con- 
firm and  give  permanence  to  these,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  sayings  in  question  received  in  the  tradition  a 
more  Jewish-legalistic  expression  than  he  himself  could 
have  intended. 

This  view  of  Jesus'  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  ap- 
pears to  be  confirmed  by  his  answer  to  a  question  regard- 
ing the  fasting  of  his  disciples  put  to  him  according  to  the 
first  Gospel  by  John's  disciples  and  according  to  the  third 
by  the  Pharisees.  After  giving  a  qualified  recognition  of 
fasting  as  an  expression  of  sadness,  he  says :  "  No  one 
putteth  a  patch  of  undressed  cloth  on  an  old  garment ;  for 
the  piece  that  fitteth  in  teareth  away  from  the  garment, 
and  a  worse  rent  is  made.  Nor  do  men  put  new  wine  into 
old  skins,  else  the  skins  burst,  and  the  wine  runneth  out, 
and  the  skins  are  spoilt.  But  they  put  new  wine  into  new 
skins,  and  both  are  preserved  together."  *  This  is  a  most 
decided  expression  in  parabolic  form  of  the  incompatibility 
of  the  spirit  of  the  new  doctrine  with  that  of  the  old,  or 
at  least  with  the  old  forms.  He  who  attempts  to  fit  the 
Christian  idea  of  life  and  duty  with  the  observance  of  the 
requirements  of  the  law  as  to  fasting,  etc.,  will  come  into 
discord  with  himself ;  "  there  will  be  an  ever  enlarging  rent 
in  his  religious  consciousness ;  he  cannot  retain  the  old, 
because  the  new  rejects  it."  If  the  spirit  of  the  new  teach- 
ing be  put  into  a  vessel  of  the  old,  it  will  break  the  vessel, 
and  go  to  waste.  Hence  it  must  create  a  new  form  for 
itself.  Let  this  last  statement  be  duly  emphasized.  There 

*  Matt.  ix.  16-18  ;  Mark  ii.  14-22  ;  Luke  v.  27-29. 


90          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

was  to  be  no  harsh  rupture  with  the  old  ideas  and  forms, 
no  violent  separation  from  the  venerated  historical  faith. 
The  new  spirit  has  eternal  youth,  and  can  await  the  pro- 
cesses of  evolution  to  get  itself  a  new  tabernacle.  Accord- 
ingly, Jesus  himself  with  the  sublime  patience  of  genius 
continued  to  put  the  new  wine  into  the  old  skins,  inas- 
much as  he  did  not  radically  break  with  traditional  and 
legalistic  Judaism.  Wishing  to  preserve  the  substantial 
contents  of  the  law,  whatever  was  permanent  and  valid  in 
it,  he  was  great  enough  to  know  that  he  could  not  do  this 
without  respecting  to  some  extent  the  ancient  forms.  Yet 
he  clearly  perceived  the  fundamental  opposition  of  the 
new  and  the  old,  and  foresaw  that  the  vigorous  spirit  of 
the  one  would  soon  shatter  the  frail  form  of  the  other, 
and  make  for  itself  "  nobler  mansions  "  for  the  new  ages 
to  come. 

7. — JESUS'     TEACHING    REGARDING     HIMSELF. 

That  Jesus  did  not  regard  a  doctrine  of  his  person  as  a 
matter  of  paramount  importance  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  historical  sources  of  his  teaching,  the  synoptical 
Gospels,  do  not  contain  any  explicit  formulation  of  it  by 
himself.  According  to  their  story  of  his  life  he  is  so 
much  occupied  with  the  preaching  of  righteousness  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  with  his  mission  of  helpfulness 
to  men,  that  an  express  teaching  as  to  his  nature  and 
origin  would  have  the  appearance  of  turning  aside  from  a 
direct  course,  and  give  the  impression  of  incongruity.  It 
is,  accordingly,  no  easy  task  to  determine  from  scattered 
intimations  and  from  the  various  epithets  which  he  ap- 
plies to  himself  precisely  what  teaching  respecting  his 
person  he  intended  to  convey.  The  problem  is  connected 
with  the  question  whether  at  different  periods  of  his 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  91 

ministry  he  held  different  views  of  his  nature  and  mis- 
sion ;  and  this  is  again  rendered  difficult  by  uncertainty 
as  to  the  correct  chronological  arrangement  of  the 
materials  of  the  history  in  the  synoptical  Gospels.  If  we 
regard  Mark's  Gospel  as  containing  the  most  correct 
chronology,  and  relegate  some  of  the  sayings  and  events 
recorded  in  the  first  Gospel  to  a  later  time  than  is  there 
given  to  them,  it  will  appear  that  it  was  not  until  near 
the  end  of  his  ministry  that  Jesus  made  any  express 
declaration  to  his  disciples  of  the  nature  of  his  mission. 
It  is,  of  course,  an  entirely  different  question  how  early  he 
became  conscious  of  the  real  character  of  his  work ;  and 
still  another  question,  on  which  everything  depends  with 
which  this  discussion  is  concerned,  whether  he  regarded 
himself  at  any  time  as  anything  more  than  a  teacher  of 
righteousness  and  a  herald  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  absence  of  assumptions  of  superiority  and  excep- 
tional rank  certainly  characterizes  one  phase  of  his  teach- 
ing regarding  himself.  He  lays  no  claim  to  a  divine 
origin  or  nature,  or  to  an  extraordinary  birth.  He  ap- 
plies to  himself  an  adage  respecting  prophets,  *  calls 
himself  expressly  a  teacher,  f  and  rejects  the  epithet 
"  good  "  as  belonging  only  to  God.  J  The  popular  opin- 
ions respecting  his  person  prior  to  the  scene  at  Caesarea 
Philippi  indicate  that  he  had  neither  claimed  to  be  more 
than  a  man  nor  made  upon  the  people  the  impression  of 

*  Luke  iv.  24.  f  Matt,  xxiii.  8. 

\  Mark  x.  18,  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  "  In  the  first  Gospel  Jesus 
is  represented  as  saying  :  "  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is 
good?"  But  here  the  question  of  the  young  man  is  also  different :  "  What 
good  thing  shall  I  do?"  Yet  why  the  fact  that  God  alone  is  good  should 
be  alleged  as  a  reason  why  this  question  should  not  be  asked  Jesus  is  not 
apparent.  Mark's  account  appears  to  be  the  more  correct,  and  Luke's 
agrees  with  it. 


92          THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

a  superhuman  being.  For  it  appears  that  he  was  regarded 
as  John  the  Baptizer,  Elijah,  Jeremiah,  or  some  other  one 
of  the  prophets,*  or  in  other  words,  as  a  forerunner  of 
the  Messiah.  Another  aspect  of  his  teaching  concerning 
himself,  however,  which  is  different  from  this,  though  not 
incompatible  with  it,  appears  in  the  titles  which  he 
assumed,  "Christ,"  "  Son  of  God,"  and  "  Son  of  Man." 
With  regard  to  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  it  would  ap- 
pear that  Jesus  did  not  think  that  a  doctrine  of  his  divine 
sonship  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  require  at  his 
hands  a  precise  definition  of  it.  We  can  accordingly 
only  infer  the  meaning  which  he  intended  to  convey  by 
the  words  which  he  employed  to  express  his  relation  to 
the  Father.  For  the  most  part  when  he  addresses  God 
as  the  Father,  or  as  his  Father,  or  speaks  of  Him  in  this 
relation,  there  is  nothing  in  the  form  of  words  or  in  the 
connection  which  appears  to  indicate  that  he  thought  of 
his  sonship  as  different  in  principle  from  that  of  other 
men.-)-  He  teaches  his  disciples  to  call  upon  God  in 
prayer  by  the  name  of  Father,  as  he  himself  was  accus- 
tomed to  address  Him,  blesses  the  peace-makers  as  "  sons 
of  God,"  and  exhorts  men  to  love  their  enemies  that  they 
may  become  sons  of  their  Father  who  is  in  heaven.j:  It 
is  doubtful,  however,  whether  this  view  of  the  matter  con- 
tains a  complete  account  of  Jesus'  consciousness  of  his 

*  Matt.  xvi.  13. 

fMatt.  vii.  21,  x.  32,  33,  xi.  25,  xii.  50,  xvi.  17  ;  Mark  xiv.  36  ;  Luke 
xxiii.  46,  etc.  The  expression,  "  My  Father  who  is  in  heaven,"  6  itarrfp 
fj,ov  o  kr  roVi  ovparoit,  is  peculiar  to  Matthew,  and  is  generally  used  by 
Jesus  when  he  is  speaking  of  God  to  others,  while  in  addressing  Him  he 
usually  employs  the  simple  term,  "Father."  Holsten  has  made  an  elabo- 
rate study  of  the  phrase,  6  Ttarrjp  juov,  etc.,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl. 
Theol  ,  1890,  pp.  129-180. 

t  Matt.  v.  9,  44,  45. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  93 

relation  to  God  as  Son.  For  he  sometimes  speaks  of 
himself  as  "  the  Son,"  as  if  he  were  conscious  of  a  son- 
ship  in  a  peculiar  and  eminent  sense.  -In  the  parable  of 
the  husbandmen  he  evidently  intends  to  represent  his 
mission  to  the  Jewish  people  as  that  of  the  "  one  beloved 
Son,"  who  was  rejected  and  slain.*  A  consciousness  of 
preeminence  appears  also  to  find  expression  in  the  declara- 
tion that  "  no  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  nor 
doth  anyone  know  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whom  it  is  the  will  of  the  Son  to  reveal  Him.f  An 
exceptional  relation  of  Jesus  to  God,  at  least  in  the 
degree  of  knowledge  and  communion,  appears  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  these  words,  and  the  conviction  that  he  had  a 
special  mission  to  men  could  alone  inspire  the  invitation 
which  follows  to  those  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden. 
This  view  appears  to  be  the  only  conclusion  of  a  fair  inter- 
pretation of  these  words  and  others  of  similar  import. 
Precisely  what  Jesus  meant  by  this  preeminent  sonship 
it  may  be  impossible  to  determine;  but  from  his  teach- 
ing respecting  the  spiritual  sonship  of  those  who  love 
their  fellow-men  the  inference  appears  to  be  legitimate 
that  he  regarded  himself  as  "  the  Son "  by  preemi- 
nence, as  knowing  the  Father  and  especially  qualified  to 
reveal  Him  to  men,  because,  having  fulfilled  in  the  high- 
est degree  the  conditions  of  this  sonship,  he  was  con- 
scious of  a  spiritual  affinity  and  communion  with  God 

*  Mark  xii.  1-12. 

f  Matt.,  xi.  27.  Cf.  Luke  x.  17-20.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  original 
text  is  preserved  in  the  Gospels,  since  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  were 
acquainted  with  a  reading  which  makes  Jesus  say  :  "  No  one  knoweth  the 
Father  but  the  Son,  nor  the  Son  but  the  Father,  and  they  to  whom  the  Son 
may  reveal  him."  Justin,  Apol.  i.  63,  Dial.  100  ;  Iren.  Haeres.  ii.  6,  I. 
See  Hilgenfild,  Theol.  Jahrb,  1853,  p.  215,  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.,  1867,  p.  406  ;  Keim.  Gesch.  Jesu,  ii.  p.  379. 


94          THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

which  could  belong  to  none  who  had  not  attained  to  his 
religious  experience.  His  eminence  above  other  "  sons 
of  God  "  would  thus  appear  to  be  determined  by  degrees 
of  spiritual  endowment  or  development.  This  conclusion 
is  supported  by  his  own  teaching  regarding  sonship,  while 
the  opinion  that  he  had  in  mind  a  metaphysical  sonship, 
that  is,  a  divine  nature,  or  a  superhuman  generation,  is 
wholly  without  support  either  in  the  passages  in  question 
or  in  other  teachings  recorded  by  the  synoptists.  His 
consciousness  of  illumination  and  endowment  from  on 
high  and  of  complete  spiritual  fellowship  with  the  Father 
could  find  no  more  appropriate  expression  than  the  term 
"  Son  of  God." 

The  title  "  Son  of  God  "  was,  however,  a  Messianic 
designation  both  before  and  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  and  a 
consideration  of  his  relation  to  it  in  this  sense  is  necessary 
to  a  full  and  fair  discussion  of  the  subject.  The  term  in 
its  Old-Testament  usage  originated  in  the  idea  of  the 
theocracy.  Both  the  people  and  their  king  were  called 
the  son  and  first-born  of  God.  Nathan  is  represented  as 
speaking  the  word  of  Jahveh  in  reference  to  the  seed  of 
David  :  "  I  will  be  his  father  and  he  shall  be  my  son.  If 
he  commit  iniquity  I  will  chasten  him  with  the  rod  of 
men,"  etc.*  In  the  second  Psalm  Jahveh  is  made  to  say 
to  the  anointed  king  :  "  Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee."  f  As  the  Messiah-idea  was  developed 
out  of  the  theocratic  conception,  it  was  natural  that  the 
term  "  Son  of  God  "  should  become  a  Messianic  title  and 
acquire  a  signification  synonymous  with  "  Son  of  David," 
"  Christ,"  (anointed,  or  king,)  and  "  Messiah."  There  are 
several  passages  in  the  Gospels  which  show  that  it  had 

*  2  Sam.  vii.  14. 

f  Verses  7,  12.     See  also  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  95 

this  meaning  at  the  time  of  Jesus.*  That  this  was  not, 
however,  the  direct  designation  of  the  Messiah  at  that 
time,  giving  prominence  to  those  characteristics  of  him 
on  which  the  Jews  laid  the  chief  stress,  and  that  the  pop- 
ular titles  were  "  Anointed  "  (XpiSToz),  "  King  of  Israel," 
and  "  Son  of  David,"  appears  evident  from  the  frequent 
recurrence  of  these  terms  in  the  Gospels  and  contempo- 
raneous writings. f  But  however  the  Jews  of  his  time  may 
have  regarded  this  appellation,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Jesus  attached  to  it  primarily  the  idea  of  spiritual  like- 
ness to  and  fellowship  with  God,  the  Father.  If  he 
accepted  it  as  a  Messianic  designation  at  all,  it  was  in  the 
sense  of  a  transformed  Messiahship,  according  to  which  the 
Messiah  was  not  the  Son  of  David  and  a  temporal  ruler, 
but  the  Son  of  God  and  a  religious  teacher  and  Saviour. 
He  must  have  thought  himself  not  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
because  he  was  the  Messiah,  but  to  be  the  Messiah  be- 
cause he  was  the  Son  of  God.  This  complete  reversal  of 
the  ideas  of  his  time  is  a  striking  evidence  of  his  origi- 
nality and  his  religious  genius.  Whether  or  no  he  believed 
himself  to  be  a  descendant  of  David  "  according  to  the 
flesh,"  he  never  appealed  to  such  a  descent  as  evidence 
of  Messiahship.  On  the  contrary,  after  the  multitude  had 
hailed  him  as  the  son  of  David  on  occasion  of  his  entry 
into  Jerusalem  he  repudiated  this  relationship  as  belong- 
ing to  the  Messiah  by  an  argument  which,  though  it  may 
seem  strange  to  one  who  holds  the  modern  ideas  of  inter- 
pretation, was  doubtless  convincing  to  the  Jews.  How, 

*  Mark  xiv.  61  ;  Matt.  xvi.  16  ;  John  xi.  27,  xx.  31. 

f  Mark  x.  47,  xi.  10,  xv.  2,  18,  26,  32  ;  Matt.  ii.  2  ;  John  i.  49.  Ps.  Sol. 
xvii.  5,  23.  4  Esdras  xii.  32.  For  the  designation  of  the  Messiah  as  Son 
of  God  there  are  to  be  quoted,  Enoch  cv.  2  ;  4  Esdras  vii.  28,  xiii.  32,  37, 
52,  xiv.  9.  See  Schurer,  Gesch.  des  jud.  Volkes,  ii.  p.  443. 


96          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

he  asks,  can  the  Christ  be  David's  son,   since  David  calls 
him  lord  ?* 

That  Jesus  believed  himself  to  have  a  Messianic  mission 
to  his  nation  in  this  transformed  meaning  of  the  Messiah 
ship  appears  to  be  the  only  legitimate  conclusion  from 
the  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  where  he  accepted  Peter's 
declaration  that  he  was  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God."f  If  we  accept  the  chronology  according  to  which 
he  does  not  appear  before  this  time  to  have  declared  him. 
self  explicitly  in  a  Messianic  character,  there  would  seem 
to  be  in  his  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  Mes> 
sianic  kingdom,  as  already  come,  and  in  his  assumptions  ot 
spiritual  authority,  the  expression  of  a  consciousness  o{ 
leadership  and  preeminence  which  may  be  supposed  to 
have  ripened  even  early  in  his  ministry  into  a  conviction 
that  his  mission  was  Messianic  in  the  sense  in  which  in 
accordance  with  his  religious  genius  he  interpreted  this 
conception.  The  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi  is  so  well 
authenticated,  so  firmly  planted  in  the  tradition  of  Jesus 
that  its  rejection  seems  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  arbi- 
trary. \  Whether  the  record  of  the  first  or  of  the  second 
Gospel  be  taken  as  the  more  correct,  it  is  difficult  to  deny 
that  something  of  the  nature  of  a  Messianic  declaration 
to  his  disciples  happened  there  without  adopting  a 
method  of  interpreting  the  Gospels  which  would  tend  to 
invalidate  them  altogether.  §  Other  serious  objections 
lie  against  the  theory  of  Havet  and  Martineau  that  not 
only  this  scene  but  the  application  of  the  Messianic  title 

*  Mark  xii.  36,  37.  f  Matt.  xvi.  16. 

\  On  the  contrary,  see  Martineau,  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  1890, 
Book  iv.  chap,  ii 

§  Mark's  account  is  the  simpler  of  the  two,  and  probably  the  older.  Chap, 
viii.  27  f.  Cf.  Matt.  xvi.  13-21.  Luke  does  not  locate  the  scene  at  Cnesare; 
Philippi,  but  "in  a  private  place  "  where  Jesus  was  praying,  chap.  ix.  i8f. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  97 

to  Jesus  was  an  afterthought  of  his  followers.  For  if 
Jesus  set  up  no  claim  to  the  Messiahship  in  any  sense,  it 
is  a  difficult  problem  to  account  for  the  Messianic  features 
of  his  tradition  as  it  has  taken  form  in  the  Gospels.  It 
were  surely  a  surprising  and  audacious  invention  which 
should  by  an  afterthought  transform  the  Galilean  carpen- 
ter's son,  the  preacher  of  righteousness  and  the  healer  of 
the  sick,  who  had  been  ignominiously  put  to  death  at  the 
instigation  of  the  Jewish  authorities,  into  the  son  of  David, 
the  Messianic  king  of  Israel.  If  he  was,  like  John  the 
Baptizer,  only  a  preacher  of  repentance  and  a  prophet  of 
the  coming  kingdom,  if  in  fact  he  was  not  "  greater  "  than 
this  one,  from  what  materials  could  an  afterthought  have 
created  the  glorious  figure  of  the  Messiah  ?  The  Messi- 
anic traits  of  the  Gospels  require  for  their  explanation 
the  hypothesis  of  the  consciousness  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
of  a  Messianic  mission,  even  though  in  a  transformed 
sense,  and  of  the  expression  of  this  consciousness  at  Cae- 
sarea  Philippi  or  elsewhere,  even  though  the  expression 
were  misunderstood  and  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  the 
popular  Messianism.  The  evangelists  bear  unconscious 
testimony  to  his  Messianic  character  when  they  record 
his  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  as  already  come,  and 
there  is  a  consistency  in  their  narratives  when  they  report 
his  acceptance  of  Peter's  confession  as  an  open  expression 
of  veiled  implications  which  the  disciples  themselves  had 
not  understood,  because  they  were  unable  to  comprehend 
the  Messiahship  in  the  spiritual  sense  in  which  he  appre- 
hended it.  Against  this  "  slowness  of  heart  "  on  the  part 
of  his  disciples  his  entire  sincerity  and  lucidity  of  expres- 
sion were  ineffectual.  One  can  readily  sympathize  with 
those  who  think  that  in  clearing  Jesus  of  all  Messianic 
claims  they  set  him  free  from  the  charge  of  insincerity. 


98          THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

But  insincerity,  double-dealing,  and  u  accommodation  " 
there  are  not  in  the  case  as  a  possible  charge  against  him. 
He  repeatedly  declared  and  taught  his  disciples  to  preach 
that  the  kingdom  had  already  come,  and  there  had  been 
no  pomp  and  show  of  temporal  power ;  and  immediately 
after  the  great  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi  he  began  to 
speak  of  his  humiliation,  and  rebuked  Peter  for  his  in- 
ability to  comprehend  a  suffering  Messiah.  In  fact,  there 
is  reason  for  believing  that  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus 
the  Messiahship  was  associated  with  the  lowly  "  Servant 
of  Jahveh  "  of  the  second  Isaiah,  the  teacher  who  should 
"  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,"  and  to  whom 
belonged  no  temporal  dominion.  One  has  only  to  recall 
the  scene  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  *  and  the  total 
impression  of  his  life  and  work  of  service  and  ministra- 
tion to  find  a  confirmation  of  this  view.f 

But  by  whatever  title  he  called  himself  or  wished  to  be 
called  of  men,  whether  Servant  of  Jahveh,  Servant  of  Man, 
or  Son  of  God,  Jesus  never  claimed  divine  rank,  and  did 
not  fail  to  recognize  his  lowliness  and  dependence.  While 
in  his  spiritual  fellowship  with  God,  in  his  sonship,  he 
doubtless  recognized  the  source  of  his  power  and  the  true 
ground  of  his  Messianic  calling,  he  did  not  regard  this 
moral  preeminence  as  annulling  the  difference  of  nature 
which  distinguished  him  as  a  finite  creature  from  the 
Creator,  his  Father.  In  the  consciousness  of  sonship  was 
implied  subordination  to  the  Father.  In  his  worship,  in 
his  cry  for  deliverance  in  Gethsemane,  in  his  religious  ex- 
perience and  example  which  cannot  be  removed  from  the 
story  of  his  life  without  defacing  it  beyond  recognition, 
are  implied  dependence,  insufficiency  in  himself,  faith, 
reverence,  and  love  toward  God — traits  of  humanness  which 

*  Luke  iv.  16-28.  f  See  Matt.  xx.  28. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  99 

constitute  the  beauty  of  his  character.  In  claiming  to  be 
Messiah,  too,  even  in  his  exalted  conception  of  Messiah- 
ship,  he  could  not  have  thought  of  himself  as  other  than  a 
human  personality,  since  according  to  the  prophets  the 
Christ  was  to  be  a  man.  His  modification  of  the  traditional 
Messianic  idea  consisted  only  in  transforming  the  human 
king  and  Son  of  David  into  a  human  teacher  and  Saviour, 
the  Son  of  God.  In  his  spiritual  endowments  and  his 
power  over  demoniacs  he  saw  no  occasion  for  self-exal- 
tation, but  rather  for  giving  glory  to  God,  by  whom  all 
things  had  been  delivered  to  him,  and  through  whom  he 
was  able  to  master  the  evil  spirits.  *  He  declared,  indeed, 
that  the  achievement  of  such  mighty  works  as  he  performed 
lay  within  the  power  of  other  men  through  faith  and 
prayer,  f  Though  conscious  that  he  was  led  by  the  divine 
love,  and  supported  by  the  divine  power  which  might 
through  prayer  be  brought  to  his  rescue  with  more  than 
twelve  legions  of  angels,  %  he  submitted  his  will  to  that  of 
his  Father  in  a  sublime  renunciation  in  which  the  strength 
of  a  great  soul  is  seen  to  overcome  through  faith  the  infir- 
mities of  human  weakness  and  doubt.  § 

If,  then,  while  conscious  that  as  the  greatest  of  the  sons 
of  God  he  had  a  Messianic  office,  Jesus  recognized  his 
dependence  and  limitation  as  a  man,  and  accepted  as  the 
type  of  his  mission  and  his  fortune  the  Servant  of  Jahveh 
who  in  a  lowly  estate  rendered  his  service  of  love  to  man, 
he  may  well  be  supposed  to  have  found  in  the  designation 
•"  Son  of  Man  "  a  most  appropriate  title  for  himself.  He 
alone  employs  it  to  designate  himself,  and  he  uses  it  with 
such  frequency  that  it  maybe  regarded  a  favorite  term 
with  him.  He  did  not,  however,  originate  it,  for  it  is 

*  Luke  x.  21  f,  xi.  20.  f  Matt.  xxi.  21  ;  Mark  ix.  23,  29. 

\  Matt.  xxvi.  53.  §  Mark  xiv.  36. 


100        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

found  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  it  is  employed  some- 
times, in  the  poetic  parallelism,  of  man  as  a  member  of  the 
human  species,  particularly  when  human  lowliness  and 
weakness  are  emphasized,*  and  once  when  the  people  of 
the  Most  High  to  whom  God  will  accord  an  eternal  king- 
dom are  seen  by  the  writer  in  the  form  of  a  Son  of  Man  in 
distinction  from  the  world-kingdoms  which  had  appeared 
in  the  forms  of  beasts,  f  The  writer  of  this  passage  does 
not  appear  to  have  had  a  personal  Messiah  in  mind  whom 
he  designated  as  the  Son  of  man,  and  the  words  have  a 
Messianic  significance  only  in  the  general  sense  that  they 
relate  to  the  national  political  prosperity  and  dominion. 
But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  they  are  suggestive  of  a 
personal  Messiah  under  the  name  Son  of  Man,  and  it  is 
not  improbable  that  in  some  circles  of  Jewish  thought  this 
term  may  have  come  to  have  a  Messianic  meaning  prior 
to  the  time  of  Jesus,  although  this  opinion  cannot  be 
unquestionably  established  by  the  use  of  the  term  in  the 
book  of  Enoch,  since  the  section  in  which  it  is  employed 
may  be  of  Christian  origin.  J  There  can  be  little  doubt, 
however,  that  the  term  in  question  is  not  represented  in 
the  synoptical  Gospels  as  a  current  and  popular  designa- 
tion of  the  Messiah,  and  that  Jesus  in  his  use  of  it  did  not 
give  to  his  hearers  generally  the  impression  that  he  was 
that  expected  person.  His  use  of  it  prior  to  the  scene  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  does  not  appear  to  have  given  this  im- 
pression even  to  his  disciples.  His  celebrated  question  on 

*  Num.  xxiii.  19  ;  Ps.  viii.  3  ;  Job  xxv.  6  ;  Isa.  li.  12  ;  Ez.  ii.  13,  and 
frequently  elsewhere  ;  Dan.  viii.  17. 

f  Dan.  vii.  13. 

\  See  Dillmann,  Das  Buch  Henoch,  etc.,  1853  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  judische 
Apokalyptik,  1857  ;  Weisse,  Die  Evangelienfrage,  1856  ;  Holsten,  in  Zeit- 
sch.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.,  1891,  pp.  46-55. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  IOI 

this  occasion  cannot  be  understood  as  meaning  :  "  Who  do 
men  say  that  I,  the  Messiah,  am?"  but  rather:  "  Who  do 
men  say  that  I,  who  call  myself  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  " 
Besides  he  could  not  have  declared  Peter's  confession  that 
he  was  the  Messiah  to  be  given  by  divine  illumination,  if 
he  had  supposed  that  in  the  mind  of  this  disciple  the  Son 
of  Man  and  the  Messiah  were  synonymous  terms.  It  is, 
indeed,  not  obvious  how  the  expression  could  have  come 
among  the  Jews  to  have  a  Messianic  signification.  The 
passage  in  Daniel  does  not  directly  convey  it,  and  its  use 
elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  is  rather  suggestive  of 
human  dependence  and  weakness  in  contrast  with  the 
greatness  and  power  of  God  than  of  such  qualities  as  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  associate  with  their  Messiah, 
even  though  they  conceived  of  him  as  a  man  descended 
from  David.  The  conjecture  is  not  wholly  without  prob- 
ability for  its  support  that  if  Jesus  did  not  introduce  the 
Messianic  signification  of  the  term,  his  use  of  it  caused 
this  sense  to  be  popularly  attached  to  it  when  in  the 
tradition  of  his  life  his  Messianic  character  was  made  dis- 
tinctively prominent.  The  term  belongs  to  the  Gospel- 
tradition,  and  does  not  appear  in  the  Epistles. 

At  what  time  in  the  course  of  his  ministry  Jesus  came 
to  regard  himself  .as  the  Messiah  is  altogether  a  matter  of 
conjecture.  But  there  are  indications  in  the  manner  of 
his  teaching  regarding  the  kingdom  of  God  and  in  his 
assumptions  of  authority  and  preeminence  that  he  was 
clearly  conscious  of  such  a  mission  before  the  open 
acknowledgment  of  it  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  His  unwill- 
ingness to  be  openly  proclaimed  as  the  Christ  must  not 
be  regarded  as  indicating  either  that  he  rejected  the  title 
or  thought  that  it  was  one  to  be  held  as  "  a  private  preroga- 
tive." In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  his  own  thought  the 


102        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Messiahship  was  transformed  into  a  spiritual  office,  the 
conjecture  is  not  improbable  that  he  wished  to  prepare  the 
people  for  the  reception  of  the  new  kingdom  of  God,  the 
kingdom  as  he  conceived  it,  before  announcing  himself  as 
its  king.  It  is  not  altogether  clear,  besides,  that  he  at  first 
attached  to  the  term  Son  of  Man,  a  distinctively  Mes- 
sianic signification.  But  the  difficulty  of  this  problem  is 
apparent  on  account  of  its  complication  with  the  question 
of  the  chronology  of  the  Gospels.  While  in  the  accounts 
of  the  second  coming,  which  doubtless  give  an  apocalyptic 
coloring  to  Jesus'  actual  sayings  regarding  the  future, 
there  is  evidently  to  be  seen  the  influence  of  the  passage 
in  Daniel  upon  the  representations  of  the  writers,  there  is 
great  probability  that,  from  the  manner  in  which  he 
speaks  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man  in  words  which  are 
undoubtedly  genuine,  his  conception  of  the  appellation 
was  rather  derived  from  that  frequent  Old-Testament 
usage  in  which  this  term  represents  human  nature  in  its 
dependence  and  limitation.*  In  the  answer  to  the  scribe 
who  wished  to  follow  him,  the  saying  that  "  the  foxes 
have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  lodging-places, 
but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head,"  f 
there  is  no  intimation  that  the  appellation  in  question  had 
in  the  mind  of  Jesus  the  exalted  signification  of  Son  of 
God  or  Messiah,  or  even  of  the  "  Archetypal  Man,"  but 
it  rather  appears  to  designate  him  as  the  man,  who  wishes 
only  to  be  man  in  the  most  genuine  and  widest  sense  of 
the  conception,  as  one  who  thinks  nothing  to  be  remote 
from  himself  which  belongs  to  a  human  existence,  to  the 
fortune  of  a  human  life,  and  who  therefore  regards  it  as 

*  The  passages  referred  to  on  a  preceding  page  are  especially   suggestive 
of  this  relation  in  contrast  with  the  divine  nature, 
f  Matt.  viii.  20. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  103 

his  peculiar  calling  to  submit  to  all  the  sufferings  and 
sacrifices  incident  to  his  position  among  men  for  the  ser- 
vice of  mankind.*  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  em- 
ploys this  term  without  any  indication  of  its  origin  and 
with  no  explanation  of  its  meaning  to  himself,  it  would 
appear  that  a  higher  and  more  emphatic  sense  could  only 
be  read  into  it  in  this  passage  with  its  connection.  A 
similar  conception  of  the  Son  of  Man  appears  to  be 
expressed  in  the  passage  which  follows  the  admonition  to 
his  disciples  not  to  aspire  after  positions  of  authority,  'but 
to  regard  the  place  of  a  servant  as  the  highest  :  "  As  the 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve,  and  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  f  A  fortune  in  which 
service  rendered  to  the  benighted  and  wandering  and 
suffering  undergone  at  the  hands  of  unfeeling  and  unap- 
preciative  men,  predominate,  is  described  in  the  words  : 
"  The  Son  of  Man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost " ;  "  So  also  is  the  Son  of  Man  to  suffer  by 
them.";):  In  such  a  use  of  this  designation  no  reference 
to  a  Messianic  dignity  is  necessarily  contained,  and  none 
could  be  conveyed  to  the  disciples  or  to  other  hearers.  A 
participation  in  the  ordinary  conditions  of  human  life  is 
indicated  in  the  saying:  "  The  Son  of  Man  came  eating 
and  drinking,"  etc.,  and  a  subordination  to  God  is  implied 
in  the  declaration  regarding  forgiveness  for  words  spoken 
against  the  Son  of  Man  as  opposed  to  the  unpardonable 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit. § 

*  Baur,  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.,  1860,  p.  280. 

f  Matt.  xx.  28.  \  Luke  xix.  10  ;  Matt.  xvii.  12. 

§  Matt.  xii.  32.  To  charge  that  the  cure  of  demoniacs,  which  Jesus 
claimed  to  effect  "  by  the  finger  of  God,"  was  effected  through  Beelzebub, 
was  unpardonable  "  ir  this  age  or  in  the  age  to  come,"  that  is,  in  the  pre- 
Messianic  or  in  the  Messianic  age.  It  is  doubtful  that  Jesus  spoke  these 
words;  for  all  reference  by  him  to  a  Messianic  age  still  to  come  is  irreconcil- 


IO4       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  several  passages  besides 
the  apocalyptic  sayings  in  which  Jesus  appears  as  the 
Son  of  Man  to  assume  an  exceptional  rank  and  dignity, 
and  to  employ  expressions  regarding  himself  which  could 
not  but  lead  his  disciples  to  think  of  him  as  occupying  a 
peculiar  and  eminent  position  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  sower,  the  sower 
of  the  good  seed  is  said  to  be  the  Son  of  Man.*  As 
this  is  a  parable  of  the  kingdom,  the  position  which 
Jesus  assigns  to  himself  as  the  representative  of  the 
celestial  powers  of  good  against  the  arch  enemy,  the 
Devil,  in  a  great  contest  of  the  ages,  is  clearly  one  of 
high  rank.  When  the  Pharisees  charged  his  disciples  with 
breaking  the  sabbath  by  plucking  and  eating  the  ears  of 
grain  as  they  passed  through  the  fields,  he  replied  that  in 
the  temple  the  priests  profane  the  sabbath  and  are  blame- 
less, and  declared  that  something  greater  than  the  temple 
was  there  among  them,  closing  with  the  announcement 
that  the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  of  the  sabbath,  f  To  cer- 
tain scribes  who*denounced  him  as  a  blasphemer  because 
he  had  declared  forgiveness  of  sins  to  a  paralytic  he 
answered  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins.  \  In  reporting  this  event  the  first  evangelist 
remarks  that  the  people  glorified  God  who  had  given 
such  power  to  men,  that  is,  had  raised  up  one  man 
furnished  with  such  a  divine  power. 

The  meaning  of  the  term  in  question  in  the  mind  of 
Jesus  has  been  regarded  as  involving  one  of  the  most 
difficult  problems  in  New-Testament  theology,  and  the 

able  with  his  belief  in  his  Messiahship,  in  the  spiritual  kingdom  and  its 
spiritual  king  as  already  come. 

*  Matt.  xiii.  37.  f  Matt.  xii.  1-9. 

.    JMatt.  ix.  1-8;  Mark  ii.  1-13. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS  1 05 

paradoxical  use  of  it  in  the  passages  just  quoted  to  ex- 
press now  lowliness,  now  exaltation,  is  not  an  unimport- 
ant factor  in  the  difficulty.  The  apparent  disinclination 
of  Jesus  to  define  his  nature  and  rank  is,  of  course,  an- 
other, and  this  might  seem  to  enjoin  the  student  of  his 
teachings  not  to  inquire  too  curiously  into  a  matter  to 
which  he  evidently  attached  little  importance.  One 
might  well  heed  this  implied  injunction,  were  not  the  in- 
quiry necessary  in  order  to  correct  many  tenacious  and 
widespread  errors.  It  is  evident,  then,  in  view  of  the 
foregoing  considerations,  that  Jesus'  employment  of  the 
term  Son  of  Man  as  a  designation  of  himself  can  only  be 
understood  in  connection  with  his  peculiar  apprehension 
of  the  Messiahship,  that  is,  with  the  transformed  sense  in 
which  he  appropriated  this  ancient  Jewish  title.  Had  he 
wished  to  declare  himself  as  the  Jewish  Messiah,  there 
was  no  lack  of  terms  at  his  disposal  which  could  not  have 
been  of  doubtful  import  to  his  disciples  and  to  the  peo- 
ple. Instead  of  employing  any  of  these  he  chose  as  his 
favorite  and  almost  exclusive  self-designation  a  term 
which  had  at  the  best  a  veiled  and  obscure  signification, 
and  which  was  by  no  means  a  current  and  popular  ex. 
pression  for  the  Messiah.  This  he  evidently  did  not  use 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  first  personal  pronoun,  as  if  he 
could  have  said  without  incongruity  :  "  If  the  Son  of  Man 
send  them  away  fasting  to  their  houses,  they  will  faint  on 
the  road,"  etc.,  but  only  when  he  attached  a  special  sig- 
nificance to  it  as  a  designation  of  himself.  Precisely  what 
this  special  significance  was  is  the  problem  to  be  solved. 
The  opinion  that  he  intended  by  the  expression  to  desig- 
nate only  his  lowly  position  and  fortune  as  a  man  is  hardly 
tenable  in  view  of  his  use  of  it  in  connection  with  the 
assumption  of  exceptional  dignity  and  authority,  as  in 


106       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

some  of  the  passages  already  quoted.  Out  of  a  combina- 
tion of  the  two  sets  of  passages,  however,  appears  to  come 
a  solution  of  the  apparent  paradox  which  they  contain 
and  of  the  problem  itself.  For  while  to  Jesus  himself  the 
popular  designation  of  Messiah  was  not  the  Son  of  Man, 
but  the  Son  of  God,  he  employs  the  former  expression  in 
several  passages  in  which  it  appears  to  have  a  Messianic 
import.  But  this  Messianic  import  was  not  a  traditional 
one,  according  to  which  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  tem- 
poral ruler,  but  the  ancient  idea  transformed,  spiritual- 
ized, and  raised  to  its  world-historical  significance.  As 
the  Messiah  in  this  sense,  then,  Jesus  regarded  himself  as 
a  man  sharing  the  common  fortunes  of  his  kind  ;  and  as  a 
man  of  exceptional  spiritual  endowments,  charged  with  a 
great  spiritual  mission,  and  living  in  intimate  communion 
with  God,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  the  appellation, 
Son  of  God.  As  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God  he  ac- 
cepted the  Messianic  office,  and  in  the  former  term  he 
included  the  spiritual  elevation  which  the  latter  ex- 
pressed together  with  the  human  lowliness  which  was 
the  obvious  implication  of  the  former. 

The  use  by  Jesus  of  a  Messianic  designation,  which  did 
not  reveal  him  as  Messiah,  evidently  presents  a  difficulty. 
How  could  he  employ  a  term  which  he  understood  as  a 
Messianic  appellation,  but  which  no  one  besides  so  under- 
stood, prior  to  the  proclamation  of  himself  as  Christ  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  ?  This  difficulty  has  led  Bruckner  and 
Baldensperger  to  assume  that  the  chronology  of  Matthew 
and  Mark  is  incorrect,  and  that  Jesus  really  prior  to  the 
event  at  Caesarea  Philippi  preached  a  Messiahless  king- 
dom of  God,  representing  himself  as  only  the  herald  of 
the  kingdom  and  not  its  king.  This  conclusion  appears 
unnecessarily  to  discredit  the  records,  although  it  has 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  IO/ 

been  reached  after  the  publication  of  learned  treatises 
on  the  subject  by  several  of  the  ablest  masters.*  Per- 
haps a  solution  of  this  problem  may  be  found  in  the  ex- 
alted spiritual  sense  in  which  Jesus  regarded  himself  as 
Messiah.  Not  wishing  to  declare  himself  openly  as  the 
Christ  in  the  Jewish  sense  of  the  term  which  was  con- 
trary to  his  conception  of  his  mission,  he  employed  as 
fitting  to  this  conception  the  expression  Son  of  Man,  and 
used  it  as  a  veiling  and  problematical  designation  which 
was  to  serve  until  his  spiritual  idea  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  of  himself  as  the  Messiah  should  be  in  a  measure 
prepared  for  and  established.  Whether  the  designation 
was  original  with  him,  or  was  suggested  by  the  passage  in 
Daniel  or  by  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  must 
remain  a  matter  of  conjecture.  It  should  be  observed, 
however,  that  in  the  passage  in  Daniel  the  representative 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  designated  by  a  term  which 
emphasized  human  qualities,  and  suggested  both  the  de- 
pendence and  the  weakness  of  human  nature  and  the 
victory  with  which  it  should  ultimately  be  crowned.  It 
is  evident  that  this  idea  has  an  affinity  with  Jesus'  con- 
ception of  the  Messianic  kingdom  as  a  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral economy  which  was  to  engage  upon  the  earth  in  a 
successful  conflict  with  the  powers  of  evil.  In  the  term 
Son  of  Man  as  employed  in  the  Old  Testament  Jesus 
appears,  then,  to  have  found  an  idea  to  which  he  could 
attach  his  teaching  regarding  the  Messiah  and  his  king- 
dom, but  in  taking  his  departure  from  it  he  gave  it,  by  a 
spiritual  and  original  interpretation,  a  meaning  which  was 
strange  and  surprising  to  his  countrymen.  In  the  term 
Son  of  Man  as  applied  to  himself  he  included  the  idea 
of  his  participation  in  human  nature,  and  indicated  the 

*  Notably  by  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  and  Holtzmann. 


IOS        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

lowliness  of  the  external  appearance  and  earthly  fortune 
of  one  who  also  bore  the  dignity  and  glory  of  the  Mes- 
sianic rank.  This  idea  appears  to  lie  at  the  basis  of  his 
declaration  regarding  the  sabbath.  For  if  the  sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  then  man  may  assume  the  right  to  de- 
termine how  it  shall  be  used  for  his  purposes  and  his  well- 
being,  and  the  Son  of  Man  may  well  assert  that  he  is  lord 
of  the  sabbath,  and,  as  the  Messianic  representative  of 
God  and  of  mankind,  has  the  authority  to  decide  how  it 
shall  be  appropriated  to  divine  and  human  uses.  It  is, 
indeed,  just  this  assumption  of  authority  as  the  Son  of 
Man  for  the  sake  of  mankind  which  distinguishes  this 
new-born  Messiahship.  Precisely  the  qualities  it  is  which 
have  constituted  for  ages  the  strength  and  greatness  of 
Christian  character  that  Jesus  unites  in  this  transfigured 
and  spiritualized  Messiah,  lowliness  and  spiritual  eleva- 
tion, the  love  which  extends  a  hand  for  the  service  of  man 
and  the  faith  which  reaches  up  to  the  Eternal,  the  Son  of 
Man  and  the  Son  of  God  united  and  constituting  a  per- 
sonality which  spends  itself  in  helpfulness  and  renews 
itself  by  worship — such  is  the  new  Messiah  of  world-his- 
torical significance  and  world-transforming  power.* 

*  Among  the  most  important  discussions  of  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  the 
student  may  consult  Reuss,  La  Theologie  chretienne  au  Siecle  apostolique, 
i.  pp.  227  ff  ;  Baur,  Neutestamentl.  Theol.  pp.  75  ff,  and  Zeitsch.  ftir  wis- 
senschaftl.  Theol.  1860,  pp.  274  ff  ;  Immer,  Neutestamentl.  Theol.  1877, 
pp.  105  ff  ;  Weizsacker,  Untersuch.  Uber  die  evangel.  Gesch.  pp.  426  ff ; 
Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  ii.  pp.  64  ff,  and  Der  geschichtliche  Christus,  pp.  100  ff  ; 
Schenkel,  Bibel-Lexicon,  iv.,  article  "  Menschensohn";  Colani,  Jesus-Christ 
et  les  Croyances  messianiques,  etc.,  2  ed.  pp.  74  ff  ;  Beyschlag,  Neutesta- 
mentl. Christol.  pp.  9  ff  ;  Wittichen,  Die  Idee  des  Menschen,  pp.  96  ff  ; 
Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  fttr  wiss.  Theol.  1863,  pp.  327  ff  ;  Holtzmann,  #., 
1865,  pp.  212  ff  ;  Hausrath,  Neutestamentl.  Zeitgesch.,  i.  pp  420  ff  ;  Mar- 
tineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  etc.,  Book  iv.  chap,  ii ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu, 
ii.  pp.  44  ff  ;  Weisse,  Die  Evangelienfrage,  pp.  196  ff  ;  Holsten,  Zeitschr. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  109 

8. — THE    SAYINGS    OF    JESUS    CONCERNING    HIS    DEATH. 

The  questions  whether  Jesus  foresaw  and  foretold  his 
death  by  violence,  and  whether  he  attached  any  doctrinal 
significance  to  his  passion,  present  grave  difficulties  to  the 
student  of  the  Gospels.  The  sayings  which  relate  to  the 
former  of  these  questions  naturally  fall  into  two  classes  : 
those  which  contain  only  intimations  of  his  suffering  or 
death,  and  those  in  which  his  passion  is  announced  ex- 
plicitly and  in  detail.  Intimations  only  are  contained  in 
the  sayings  that  the  disciples  would  fast  when  the  bride- 
groom should  be  taken  away  from  them ;  that  the  Son  of 
Man  must  suffer  at  the  hands  of  those  who  had  "  done 
what  they  would  "  with  John  the  Baptizer  ;  that  the  sons 
of  Zebedee  knew  not  what  they  asked,  but  would,  indeed, 
drink  of  his  cup  ;  that  the  woman  who  poured  the  oint- 
ment up'on  his  body  did  it  to  prepare  him  for  burial ;  that 
he  had  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  that  his  soul 
was  troubled  until  it  be  accomplished  ;  and  that  he  must 
go  on  day  by  day,  for  it  could  not  be  that  a  prophet 
should  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.*  On  the  other  hand 
there  are  several  sayings  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as 
explicitly  foretelling  his  passion  and  giving  details  of  it 
to  the  effect  that  he  would  be  delivered  up  to  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes,  who  would  condemn  him  to  death, 
and  hand  him  over  to  the  gentiles  to  mock  and  scourge 
and  crucify,  and  that  on  the  third  day  he  would  rise  from 
the  dead.f  If,  now,  it  be  assumed  that  the  writers  of 
the  Gospels  have  correctly  reported  the  sayings  of  Jesus 

fttr  wiss.  Theol.  1891,  pp.  1-80  ;  Bruckner,  Jahrb.  fur  Prot.  Theol.  1886, 
pp.  254  ff  ;  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  etc.,  2te  Ausg.  pp. 
169  ff  ;  Stap,  Etudes  sur  les  Origines  du  Christianisme,  3  ed.  pp. 

*Matt.  ix.  15,  xvii.  12,  xx.  22,  xxvi.  12  ;  Luke  xii.  49,  xiii.  33. 

f  Matt.  xvi.  21,  xvii.  22,  xx.   17. 


1 10       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

in  which  he  foretells  his  passion  and  resurrection  with 
such  detail  and  particularity,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  also 
a  supernatural  foreknowledge  of  these  events  on  his  part, 
since  by  no  natural  combination  could  the  place  and  the 
special  features  of  the  proceedings  be  foreknown.  But 
this  assumption  of  a  supernatural  prescience  encounters  a 
very  grave  difficulty  in  the  circumstance  that  the  narra- 
tives represent  Jesus  as  appealing  to  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  confirmation  of  his  predictions  re- 
garding his  passion.  Since,  now,  these  predictions  and 
this  appeal  to  prophecy  are  in  immediate  connection,  it 
would  be  altogether  arbitrary  and  unwarrantable  to  main- 
tain that  the  former  were  upon  the  basis  of  superhuman 
insight,  and  that  the  latter  was  upon  the  basis  of  ordinary 
human  knowledge;  that  is,  that  in  predicting  the  details 
of  his  passion  he  was  divinely  illuminated,while  in  interpret- 
ing the  prophecies  he  proceeded  as  a  Jew  of  his  time  would 
proceed.  But  it  has  been  shown  by  a  process  of  the  most 
thorough  and  learned  grammatical  and  historical  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old-Testament  passages  in  question  that 
in  none  of  them  is  there  any  reference  to  the  passion  of 
Jesus  or  to  his  resurrection.  The  application  which  Jesus 
is  reported  to  have  made  of  them  cannot,  then,  have  been 
made  by  superhuman  knowledge,  and  there  remains  no 
support  for  the  hypothesis  of  a  miraculous  foreknowledge 
of  the  particulars  of  his  passion,  since  both  operations 
must  stand  or  fall  together.  Again,  the  supposition  that 
Jesus  foretold  the  circumstances  of  his  passion  with  such 
detail  as  the  evangelists  represent  encounters  a  still 
greater  difficulty  in  the  repeated  statements  in  the  Gos- 
pels that  the  disciples  knew  nothing  of  his  approaching 
death,  and  in  their  conduct  after  his  crucifixion.  If  he 
made  such  explicit  statements  regarding  his  death  as  he 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  Ill 

is  reported  to  have  made,  it  is  incredible  that  they  should 
not  have  understood  him,  and  that  his  fate  upon  Calvary 
should  have  fallen  upon  them  as  a  blow  for  which  they 
were  entirely  unprepared,  destroying  their  hopes  in  him 
as  the  one  who  "  was  to  redeem  Israel,"  that  is,  as  the 
Messiah.  They  could  neither  have  become  familiar  by 
unmistakable  teachings*  with  the  idea  of  a  suffering 
Messiah,  nor  have  been  instructed,  as  the  Gospels  indicate 
that  they  were,  that  a  violent  death  of  the  Christ  was 
predetermined  in  the  divine  counsels  and  foreshadowed 
in  the  Old-Testament  prophecies. 

The  conclusion  to  which  these  considerations  appear, 
then,  to  point  is  that  the  explicit  and  detailed  announce- 
ments of  his  death  and  resurrection  which  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented in  the  Gopels  as  having  made  received  their 
present  form  in  the  tradition  of  his  life  in  the  light  of  the 
events  in  question.  The  intimations  of  his  passion,  how- 
ever, which  are  contained  in  the  passages  previously 
quoted,  are  not  subject  to  the  difficulties  which  render 
those  particular  predictions  improbable,  and  are,  indeed, 
explicable  in  accordance  with  the  idea  of  the  Messiahship 
which  he  entertained,  and  with  the  actual  situation  in 
which  he  was  placed.  Since  in  Jesus'  conception  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  renunciation  and  service,  self-sacrifice 
and  the  depreciation  of  earthly  goods  and  honors  were 
required  of  its  members,  and  since  he  as  its  head  declared 
himself  to  have  come  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve,  he 
may  very  well  be  supposed  to  have  anticipated  from  the 
beginning  that  his  work  could  be  completed  only  through 
trial  and  suffering.  The  fate  of  some  of  the  prophets 
and  of  John  the  Baptizer  may  have  occasioned  the  pre- 
sentiments which  are  expressed  in  the  intimations  in 

*  "  And  he  told  them  ibis  plainly"  (7tappa6iqi),  Mark  viii.  32. 


112       THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

question.  From  the  time  when  he  began  to  entertain  the 
new  idea  of  his  Messiahship  there  could  have  been  no 
necessity  of  an  adjustment  in  his  mind  between  the  office 
of  the  Christ  and  his  own  sacrifice  of  himself  for  his 
cause.  As  no  kingly  Son  of  David,  but  as  the  humble 
Son  of  Man,  he  saw  in  his  life  of  homeless  wandering,  of 
kindly  services  of  healing  and  helpfulness,  in  the  en- 
durance of  the  espionage  and  suspicion,  the  scorn  and 
rejection  of  those  in  authority,  not  a  fortune  which  was 
incompatible  with  his  Messiahship,  but  its  essential  and 
glorious  fulfilment. 

The  general  character  and  tendency  of  Jesus'  sayings 
regarding  his  sufferings  and  sacrifices  indicate  that  he 
looked  upon  them  as  incidental  to  the  service  which 
belonged  to  his  mission  to  mankind,  and  as  necessary 
under  the  existing  conditions  to  the  establishment  of  his 
cause.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  general  scope  of  his 
teaching  that  he  attached  to  them  any  doctrinal  signifi- 
cance. Accordingly,  those  passages  appear  surprising 
and  incongruous,  in  which  he  is  represented  as  speaking  of 
his  death  as  a  "  ransom,"  and  of  his  blood  as  shed  "  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  After  having  said  to  the  sons  of 
Zebedee  that  'they  should,  indeed,  drink  of  his  cup,  he 
indicates  to  the  disciples  that  among  them  rank  should  be 
determined  by  the  degree  of  service,  even  as  the  Son  of 
Man  came  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve.  So  far  his 
words  appear  to  be  in  entire  accord  with  the  occasion  and 
with  all  his  teaching,  but  the  evangelist  makes  him  add 
the  surprising  words :  "  And  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many."  *  It  should  be  observed  in  the  first  place  that 
the  saying  of  Jesus  as  called  forth  by  the  occasion  appears 
to  be  complete  without  these  words,  and  that  they  as  a 

*Matt.  xx.  28,  Xvrpov  avrl 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  113 

doctrinal  statement  implying  a  somewhat  developed 
theory  of  an  atonement  are  unfitting  to  the  connection  in 
which  he  is  discoursing  of  humility  and  of  the  high  rank 
which  should  be  given  to  those  who  best  served  others. 
But  they  appear  most  incongruous  when  regarded  in  rela- 
tion to  his  general  teaching  concerning  the  consequences 
of  sin  and  the  attainment  of  righteousness.  In  no  other 
place  is  there  even  an  intimation  of  a  substitution  of  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  by  which  men  should  be 
relieved  as  by  a  "  ransom."  Rather  the  burden  of  his 
teaching  is  that  men  should  repent  and  put  themselves 
into  right  relations  to  God  by  obedience  and  by  seeking 
His  kingdom  and  His  righteousness.  In  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  blessings  are  pronounced  on  those  who  hunger 
and  thirst  after  righteousness,  who  make  peace,  who  are 
persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  who  are  pure  in  heart ; 
and  there  is  nowhere  in  it  an  intimation  that  the  divine 
favor  is  to  be  obtained  in  any  other  way  than  by  love  to 
God  and  man,  that  is,  by  the  practice  of  morality  and  re- 
ligion. Man  is  represented  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as 
in  immediate  relations  with  the  Father.  The  latter  needs 
no  propitiation,  and  for  the  former  no  sacrifice  is  required 
but  that  of  his  selfish  passions.  The  man  who  would 
save  his  life  must  lose  it.  No  other  life  is  offered  up  as  a 
substitute  for  his.  They  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden 
are,  indeed,  invited  to  come  to  Jesus,  but  not  that  he 
may  bear  their  burdens  for  them.  If  anyone  will  come 
after  him,  let  him  take  up  his  own  cross  and  follow.  In 
Golgotha  there  is  no  substitution.  Each  soul  must  pass 
through  it  following  the  great  Leader.  This  is  the  teach- 
ing fitted  to  produce  the  heroic  character  of  which  Jesus 
himself  was  the  noblest  type,  and  capable  of  nurturing 
a  church  which  through  conflict  and  martyrdom  should 


114       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

•conquer  the  world.  It  was  quite  in  accordance  with  all 
his  teaching,  with  his  conception  of  his  mission  and  of 
himself  as  the  Son  of  Man,  that  Jesus  gave  up  his  life 
as  the  supreme  act  of  renunciation  for  the  sake  of 
fidelity  to  himself  and  his  cause ;  and  the  power  of 
his  death,  of  his  cross,  is  manifested,  not  in  those  who 
would  fain  grasp  a  crown  on  the  "  merits  "  of  his  sacrifice, 
but  in  the  heroes  who,  nurtured  in  his  spirit,  have  dared 
or  died  for  conscience  and  the  truth — in  a  Luther,  a  Huss, 
a  Savonarola,  and  the  great  army  of  martyrs. 

The  saying,  then,  in  which  Jesus  is  made  to  speak  of  his 
life  as  a  ransom  must  either  be  an  addition  to  the  dis- 
course in  which  it  occurs,  reflecting  the  ideas  of  a  later 
time,  or  it  does  not  give  in  the  Greek  rendering  an  accu- 
rate reproduction  of  his  words.  The  idea  conveyed  in  the 
Greek  Gospel  is  so  incongruous  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
regarding  God  and  man,  sin  and  the  recovery  from  it,  that 
to  establish  it  as  his  would  require  evidence  that  no  mis- 
takes occurred  in  transmitting  the  tradition  of  his  sayings, 
that  the  compiler  of  the  first  Gospel  was  incapable  of 
error,  and  that  the  text  of  his  writing  was  preserved  un- 
corrupted  down  to  the  time  when  express  witnesses  for 
this  passage  can  be  found.  A  similar  difficulty  is  presented 
in  the  passage  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying  on 
the  occasion  of  his  last  meal  with  his  disciples  that  the 
cup  was  his  blood  of  the  covenant  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins.*  The  variations  of  the  three  synopti- 
cal narratives  and  the  new  reading,  to  be  considered 
further  on,  in  the  first  and  second,  furnish  indications 
of  a  solution  of  the  difficulty.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  second  and  third  Gospels  do  not 

*  Matt.  xxvi.   28,   et$    atpetiiv   ajLtaprioov.      Cf.  Mark  xiv.  24;    Luke 
xxii.  20. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  115 

contain  the  words  of  the  first :  "  For  the  remission  of 
sins."  They  are  also  wanting  in  two  quotations  in  Justin 
Martyr.*  They  are,  besides,  altogether  incongruous  with 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  according  to  which  the  righteous- 
ness which  consists  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  is  declared 
to  be  the  condition  of  entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
In  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  reconciliation  with  the 
Father  is  represented  as  immediate,  and  hence  without 
the  intervention  of  an  atonement.  It  is  conditioned 
solely  on  repentance  and  return.  In  view  of  these  con- 
siderations the  words  in  question  must  be  regarded  as  a 
later  addition  to  the  first  Gospel,  and  as  representing  a 
theological  conception  of  the  significance  of  the  death  of 
Jesus  which  he  could  not  have  entertained.  The  omission 
of  "new"  before  "  covenant,"  according  to  the  latest 
reading  in  the  first  and  second  Gospels,  makes  it  appear 
questionable  whether  Jesus  taught  that  by  his  blood  a 
"  new  covenant,"  was  confirmed,  by  which  the  relation  of 
the  sinner  to  God  elsewhere  defined  in  his  teachings  was 
altered.  The  idea  of  a  covenant  of  "  grace  "  is  that  of 
Paul  and  Luke,  but  is  incongruous  with  the  point 
of  view  of  the  first  two  evangelists.  It  is  not  improb- 
able that  the  words  "  new  covenant  "  found  their  way 
into  Luke's  Gospel  under  the  influence  of  Paul,  and 
that  the  conception  of  the  establishment  of  a  cove- 
nant of  blood  which  is  indicated  in  the  first  two  Gos- 
pels without  the  word  "  new "  may  have  had  the 
same  source.  The  incompatibility  of  the  idea  of  a  sac- 
rificial atonement  with  the  general  scope  and  intention 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  respecting  the  relation  of  man 
to  God  is  so  manifest  that  these  words  cannot  but 
be  regarded  with  suspicion.  To  what  extent  the  Pauline 

*  Apol.  i.  66,  Dial.  70. 


Il6       THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

conception  affected  the  representation  of  the  first  two- 
Gospels  is  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  idea  of  the  intention  of  the  last  supper  which 
has  prevailed  in  Christendom  is  that  of  Paul  and  Luke, 
and  not  that  of  the  writers  of  Matthew  and  Mark, 
For,  according  to  these  latter,  it  does  not  appear  that 
Jesus  on  the  occasion  of  the  supper  thought  of  establish- 
ing a  permanent  rite  or  sacrament.  It  is  only  in  the  third 
Gospel  that  the  words,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me," 
appear.  Paul,  indeed,  writes  that  he  had  "  received  of 
the  Lord,"  that  is,  Jesus,  the  account  which  he  gives  of 
the  last  supper  ;  *  but  this  expression  doubtless  means 
that  he  had  derived  the  information  from  the  current 
tradition  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  Paul's  understanding  of 
the  intention  of  the  last  supper  was  that  it  was  to  be 
observed  in  remembrance  of  Jesus  until  his  glorious 
appearance  or  the  Parousia.  f  But  this  tradition  appears 
to  have  been  unknown  to  the  writers  of  the  first  two 
Gospels.  At  least  they  give  it  no  recognition,  and  since 
they  wrote  earlier  than  Luke,  his  account  may  show  the 
natural  traditional  accretions  of  which  the  criticism  of  the 
Gospels  detects  many  examples.  The  conjecture  appears 
probable  that  the  words,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  were  not  originally  spoken  by  Jesus,  but  that  in  the 
celebration  of  the  supper  in  the  primitive  church  the 
presiding  member  of  the  community  in  distributing  the 
elements  may  have  exhorted  the  communicants  to  con- 
tinue the  repetition  of  the  meal  in  remembrance  of  Jesus, 
and  that  from  this  primitive  Christian  ritual  the  words 
were  added  in  the  tradition  to  those  actually  spoken  by 
Jesus.  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "  For  thine 

*  i  Cor.  xi.   23  ff. 

f  axpiS  ov  OLV  f'AOfl,  "  until  he  come." 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS. 

is  the  kingdom,"  etc.,  undoubtedly  had  a  similar  origin. 
In  the  latter  case  textual  criticism  is  able  to  detect  the 
origin  of  the  added  words,  or  at  least  to  show  that  they 
are  an  addition.  The  fact  that  it  cannot  do  this  in  the 
former  case  renders  the  addition  of  the  doubtful  words 
•conjectural,  but  not  improbable. 

If,  now,  what  has  here  been  conjectured,  and  perhaps 
shown  to  be  probable,  corresponds  with  the  facts  in  the 
case,  it  will  result  that  at  the  last  supper  Jesus  did  not 
intend  to  establish  a  rite  for  the  observance  of  future 
generations,  did  not  attach  the  importance  to  the  meal 
which  has  been  accorded  to  it  in  the  Church,  and  did  not 
teach  that  a  new  covenant  was  established  in  his  blood. 
On  the  occasion  of  the  supper,  when  according  to  all  the 
indications  his  life  was  in  imminent  peril,  he  may  have 
spoken  of  the  broken  bread  and  the  wine  poured  out  as 
symbols  of  his  body  which  was  to  be  broken  and  of  his 
blood  which  was  to  be  shed,  without  attaching  any  doc- 
trinal significance  to  them.  If,  moreover,  he  did  not  at 
the  supper  say  that  his  blood  was  shed  "  for  the  remission 
of  sins,"  and  did  not  on  another  occasion  speak  of  his 
death  as  a  "  ransom,"  then  it  will  result  that  his  sayings 
regarding  his  death  were  in  entire  agreement  with  the 
rest  of  his  teachings,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  an  atone- 
ment for  sin,  as  it  has  commonly  been  taught  in  the 
Church,  cannot  be  supported  by  his  authority.  It  will 
not,  however,  result  that  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  does  not  rest  upon  his  teaching.  For  it  is  clearly 
implied  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  presents  a  striking  illustration  of  it.  Ac- 
cording to  this  parable,  it  does  not  appear,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  that  any  other  atonement  is  required  as 
the  condition  of  forgiveness  than  the  sinner  may  himself 


Il8        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

make  by  his  remorse  and  repentance.  Furthermore,  it 
does  not  appear  that  forgiveness  removes  any  of  the 
natural  consequences  of  transgression,  except  perhaps 
such  as  might  result  from  an  unforgiving  rejection  of  the 
returning  penitent.  The  parable  leaves  us  in  uncertainty 
as  to  the  moral  condition  of  the  prodigal  after  his  return,, 
does  not  tell  us  whether  he  was  happy  or  unhappy  at  the 
feast,  and  reveals  nothing  as  to  his  future  spiritual  fortune. 

9. — THE    TEACHING    OF   JESUS   REGARDING  THE  LIFE  TO    COME. 

In  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the  subject  of 
this  section  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  discrimi- 
nate between  explicit  teachings  of  Jesus  and  his  allusion 
to  or  acceptance  of  certain  current  beliefs  of  his  time  with- 
out developing  them  or  giving  importance  to  them  by 
special  sanction  and  enforcement.  One  attains  this  point 
of  view  only  when  one  has  arrived  at  a  clear  understand- 
ing of  the  scope  of  Jesus'  actual  teachings,  and  so  far 
realized  his  position  as  to  comprehend  his  idea  of  the 
work  which  he  wished  to  accomplish.  It  is  manifest  at 
the  outset  that  Jesus  did  not  regard  himself  as  possessing 
universal  knowledge  and  as  having  the  mission  to  instruct 
mankind  on  all  matters  of  human  interest  and  inquiry. 
He  put  forth  no  claims  to  so  vast  a  mission,  and  modestly 
confined  himself  in  his  teaching  within  limits  of  which  he 
appeared  to  have  a  very  clear  conception.  Had  his  in- 
terpreters understood  him  in  this  respect  the  volume  of 
so-called  Christian  theology  would  have  been  far  smaller 
and  its  quality  much  better.  Yet  the  difficulty  of  placing 
oneself  at  his  point  of  view  and  perceiving  the  scope  and 
intention  of  his  mission  is  by  no  means  insurmountable. 
One  has  only  to  observe  the  general  trend  of  his  sayings 
and  to  discriminate  between  those  of  them  which  are 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  119 

didactic  and  concern  the  main  purpose  clearly  in  view, 
and  those  which  are  incidental  or  contain  only  allusions 
to  current  opinions,  to  see  that  he  was  chiefly  concerned 
with  teaching  men  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
inducing  them  to  become  possessed  of  righteousness,  in 
which  he  included  all  the  great  moral  and  religious  virtues 
and  achievements.  While  his  aim  was  pre-eminently 
practical,  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  had  no  theology,  for 
his  teaching  concerning  God  was  well-defined  and  promi- 
nent. His  theology  was  not,  however,  speculatively  held, 
but  was  definitely  and  persistently  applied  to  the  present 
life,  as  when  he  enjoined  upon  men  the  practice  of  kind- 
ness and  forgiveness  that  they  might  be  like  their  Father 
in  heaven,  and  declared  that  love  to  God  and  men  was 
the  essential  thing  in  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

The  distinction  between  the  actually  didactic  sayings 
of  Jesus  and  his  acceptance  and  appropriation  of  current 
opinions  may  be  seen  by  contrasting  the  former  with  his 
attitude  and  procedure  with  regard  to  the  popular  angel- 
ology  and  demonology  of  his  time.  With  respect  to  the 
existence  and  nature  of  angels  and  demons  he  teaches 
nothing,  but  accepts  what  was  currently  believed.  Leav- 
ing out  of  consideration  the  apocalyptic  passages  in  which 
angels  are  spoken  of  as  executing  the  Messianic  judgment 
at  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  glory,  we  find  in  un- 
doubtedly genuine  sayings  of  Jesus  these  celestial  beings 
of  the  Jewish  mythology  distinctly  recognized  as  residents 
of  heaven  who  surround  the  Deity.*  They  are  mentioned 
on  occasion  of  the  argument  with  Sadducees  concerning 
the  resurrection  with  an  intimation  that  they  are  not  sen- 
suously constituted  like  human  beings,f  and  in  another 

*  Luke  xii.  9.     In  the  parallel,  Matt.  x.  33,  reference  to  angels  is  omitted, 
f  Matt.  xxii.  30  ;  Luke  xx.  36. 


120       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

place  guardian  angels  are  recognized,*  whether  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Jewish  doctrine  that  every  man  has  a  guard- 
ian angel  from  birth,  or  with  the  belief  which  has  inci- 
dental expression  in  the  Old  Testament  that  such  spirits 
watch  over  the  pious,  is  not  certain. f  As  in  the  current 
Jewish  mythology  there  was  a  realm  of  evil  spirits  with 
Satan  at  their  head  over  against  the  realm  of  good  spirits 
or  angels,  so  Jesus  recognizes  the  kingdom  of  Satan  and 
the  subordinate  demons  as  powers  hostile  to  the  welfare 
of  man.:f  Accordingly  he  says  to  Peter,  "  Get  thee  be- 
hind me,  Satan !  thou  art  my  stumbling-block,"  §  thus 
declaring  that  in  that  disciple's  spirit  of  opposition  to  his 
mission  he  recognized  a  likeness  to  the  great  Adversary 
of  men.  At  the  last  supper  he  is  said  to  have  remarked 
to  Peter  that  Satan  had  asked  for  him  that  he  might  sift 
him  as  wheat. ||  In  accordance  with  the  current  idea  that 
diseases  were  caused  by  the  evil  powers,  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  remark  of  the  third  evangelist  that  a  cer- 
tain woman  "  had  had  a  spirit  of  infirmity  eighteen 
years,"  T[  we  find  that  Jesus  proceeds  with  entire  naivett 
upon  the  theory  of  demoniacal  possession,  and  frequently 
speaks  of  the  cure  of  a  class  of  ailments,  of  whose  exact  na- 
ture we  have  not  a  precise  knowledge,  as  the  casting  out  of 
demons.*"*  He  declares  that  the  woman  who  was  "  bent 
together,  and  wholly  unable  to  lift  herself  up,"  had  been 

*  Matt,  xviii.  10. 

f  See  Von  Cttlln,  Biblische  Theologie,  ii.  p.  67,  and  Meyer,  Commentar 
in  loc. 

\  Mark  iii.  23  ff. 

§  Matt.  xvi.  23  ;  Mark  viii.  33.  Luke  omits  Peter's  protest  and  the  re- 
buke administered  to  him,  chap.  ix.  18  ff. 

|  Luke  xxii.  31.  \  Luke  xiii.  n. 

**  Mark  i.  23  ff,  34,  iii.  n  f,  15,  22  ff,  v.  2-5,  vi.  7,  ix.  17  f,  22  ff  ;  Luke 
x.  17-20,  xi.  14  f,  xiii.  32. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  121 

•"bound  by  Satan  eighteen  years,"  and  he  speaks  of  and 
treats  persons  known  as  demoniacs  precisely  from  the 
point  of  view  of  his  age  and  of  the  exorcists  who,  it 
appears,  cured  or  professed  to  cure  them.  The  attempt 
to  remove  the  difficulty  which  appears  to  some  people  to 
lie  in  Jesus'  acceptance  of  the  demonology  of  his  time  by 
assuming  him  to  have  spoken  of  it  figuratively  is  opposed 
to  a  sound  interpretation  of  words  which  are  so  precise 
and  direct  as  those  in  question.  It  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive that  any  one  should  speak  otherwise  than  he  did 
who  without  a  didactic  purpose  should  adopt  the  popular 
opinion.  The  interpretation  which  seeks  to  remove  the 
difficulty  by  the  supposition  that  in  using  the  language  in 
question  Jesus  adapted  himself  to  the  current  opinions, 
knowing  them  to  be  erroneous  and  not  wishing  to  correct 
them,  is  altogether  unsound  and  baseless.  For  to  say 
nothing  of  the  tacit  deception  on  the  part  of  Jesus  which 
is  implied  in  it,  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  better  in- 
formed than  his  contemporaries  of  the  nature  of  the 
diseases  in  question  is  entirely  h  priori,  since  it  rests  upon 
a  theory  of  his  knowledge  which  we  have  no  means  of 
establishing.  Both  these  expedients  are  rationalistic  and 
altogether  opposed  to  the  critical  point  of  view.  They 
can  be  adopted  only  by  one  who  at  the  cost  of  the  perver- 
sion of  the  plain  meaning  of  words  is  determined  to  make 
the  records  accord  with  a  preconceived  theory  of  the 
person  of  Jesus. 

Now  the  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding  the  condition  and 
fortune  of  men  after  death  can  only  be  correctly  inter- 
preted when  the  current  opinions  in  his  time  on  the 
subject  are  taken  into  account,  and  a  discrimination  is 
made  between  what  is  didactic  in  his  words  and  what  is  a 
mere  reference  to  or  appropriation  of  these  opinions  with- 


122        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

out  a  didactic  purpose.  That  the  Jews  of  the  time  of 
Jesus,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Sadducees,* 
believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  established  by 
contemporary  testimony  as  well  as  by  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees  the  souls  of  men  pass  immediately  after  death 
into  sheol  or  hades  which  is  divided  into  two  parts,  para- 
dise and  gehenna,  a  place  of  reward  and  a  place  of  pun- 
ishment. Yet  it  is  no  real,  vigorous  life  which  is  lived  in 
this  subterranean  paradise,  and  a  return  to  the  upper 
world,  or  the  resurrection,  is  the  sole  condition  of  entering 
upon  the  full  enjoyment  of  existence.  It  is  difficult  to 
determine  precisely  how  the  doctine  of  the  resurrection 
was  conceived  by  the  Pharisaic  party  at  the  time  of  Jesus. 
If  the  Sadducees  who  interrogated  Jesus  regarding  it 
represented  it  correctly,  it  would  appear  that  the  Pharisees 
believed  in  a  resurrection  of  the  physical  body  with  its 
original  organs  and  passions.  Yet  in  an  address  of  Jose- 
phus  to  an  imprisoned  companion  to  restrain  him  from 
suicide  the  belief  is  expressed  that  the  souls  of  those 
who  "  depart  out  of  this  life  according  to  the  law  of 
nature  *  *  *  are  again  sent  in  the  revolution  of  the 
ages  into  pure  bodies."  f  The  question,  who  according 
to  the  belief  of  the  Pharisees  were  to  have  a  part  in  the 
resurrection,  is  involved  in  obscurity.  Were  the  pious 
Israelites  only  to  be  raised,  or  the  good  and  the  bad 
Israelities,  or  all  men?  According  to  Josephus,  this  for- 
tune was  to  be  that  of  the  good  alone,  presumably  of  the 

*  The  Sadducees  denied  the  resurrection,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  they  did 
not  believe  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul  in  sheol,  in  accordance 
with  the  old  Hebrew  doctrine.  See  Hase,  Dogmatik,  2te  Ausg.,  p.  117, 
and  Zeller,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1847,  p.  391. 

f  dyvolS  6tina(5tv.     B.  J.  iii.,  8,  5. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  12$ 

Jewish  people.  The  Pharisees,  he  says,  believe  that  souls 
have  an  immortal  vigor,  and  that  under  the  earth,  (i.  e., 
in  sheol)  there  will  be  rewards  and  punishments  accord- 
ing as  they  have  lived  virtuously  or  viciously  ;  that  the 
latter  are  assigned  to  an  everlasting  prison,*  but  that  for 
the  former  there  is  power  to  revive  and  live  again,  f  On 
the  contrary  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  both  the 
righteous  and  the  unrighteous  is  said  in  Acts  to  have 
been  the  doctrine,  or  at  least  the  "  hope,"  of  the  "  sect  " 
to  which  Paul  had  belonged,  that  is,  the  Pharisees  ;  f  and 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  a  twofold  resurrection  is  declared, 
that  of  those  who  have  done  good,  and  that  of  those 
who  have  done  evil,  the  one  to  "  life,"  the  other  to  "con- 
demnation." §  .  But  in  our  first  three  Gospels  there  is  no 
intimation  that  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
unrighteous  was  held  by  the  Pharisees.  Rather  if  Jesus  be 
allowed  to  have  represented  the  Pharisaic  belief,  and  is 
correctly  reported  by  Luke,  the  resurrection  would  appear 
to  be  only  for  those  who  should  have  been  accounted 
worthy  to  obtain  it.||  Although  the  Jewish  literature  of 
the  two  centuries  before  the  time  of  Jesus  contains  inti- 
mations of  a  resurrection  of  good  and  bad  men,  1" 
evidence  that  this  belief  was  entertained  by  the  Pharisees 
in  the  first  century  of  our  era  appears  to  be  wanting.  In 
fact  there  were  two  doctrines  held  on  this  subject,  for  the 
second  book  of  Maccabees,  written  about  a  century  be- 
fore Christ,  appears  to  teach  that  it  was  believed  that 

*  Elpy^ov  didiov. 

f  (Ja6TGovr}Y  TOV  dvafiiovv,  "  a  facility  of  return  to  life,"  Ant.  xviii. 
i,  3- 

\   Acts  xxiv.  15. 

§  John  v.  28,  29. 

J  Luke   xx.  35.     The   first  two  Gospels  do  not  report  these  words. 

5  See  the  Enoch-Parables,  li.  - 


124       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Jews  alone  would  be  raised.  *  The  book  of  Daniel  repre- 
sents that  "  many  "  would  be  raised,  "  some  to  everlasting 
life  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  f  But 
this  resurrection  was  doubtless  regarded  as  confined  to 
the  Jewish  people,  and  does  not  necessarily  include  all 
of  them.  The  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  and  the 
judgment  appear  to  have  been  gradually  developed,  and 
it  is  difficult  to  determine  precisely  in  what  form  they  were 
generally  entertained  at  a  particular  historic  period.  On 
the  whole  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  rejecting 
the  very  direct  and  definite  testimony  of  Josephus  previ- 
ously quoted,  to  the  effect  that  the  Pharisees  believed 
that  the  righteous  only  could  hope  for  deliverance  from 
the  gloomy  realm  of  sheol,  while  the  wicked  would  be 
detained  there  in  an  "  everlasting  prison."  The  opinion 
appears  to  be  well  grounded  that  the  doctrine  of  a  general 
resurrection  "  did  not  establish  itself  till  toward  the  end 
of  the  first  century,  when  Christianity  had  with  some 
definiteness  separated  from  Judaism,"  and  that  "  the 
restoration  to  bodily  life  is  generally  treated  in  the  New 
Testament  as  a  reward  of  Christian  faith,"  while  "  for 
unbelievers  there .  was  no  risen  Redeemer,  no  definite 
centre  of  activity  in  the  coming  life."  \ 

The  student  of  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
must  be  on  his  guard  against  imposing  upon  it  the  modern 
Christian  conceptions  of  the  present  life  and  the  life  to 
come.  In  other  words,  the  Jewish  doctrine  must  be  re- 
garded as  connected  with  the  national  Messianic  expecta- 
tions. While  the  Messiah  was  originally  conceived  as 
merely  a  temporal  ruler  descended  from  David  and  hav- 
ing no  connection  with  a  judgment  and  resurrection,  we 

*  Chap.  vi.  9,  14,  23.  f  Chap.  xii.  2. 

\  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  394. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  12$ 

find  that  shortly  before  or  after  the  time  of  Jesus  the 
author  of  the  Enoch-Parables  represents  him  as  clothed 
with  the  functions  of  a  judge.  To  what  extent  this  idea 
prevailed  among  the  Pharisees  in  Jesus'  time  it  is  impos- 
sible to  determine ;  but  its  presence  is  plainly  indicated 
in  the  apocalyptic  accounts  of  the  second  coming  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels,  and  in  Paul's  conception  of  this  event. 
Here  we  find  that  the  resurrection  and  judgment  did  not 
in  the  Jewish  thought  involve  a  change  of  worlds,  as  the 
doctrine  is  held  by  Christians  at  the  present  time.  Rather 
in  accordance  with  ideas  expressed  in  the  apocryphal 
literature  of  the  century  or  two  preceding  the  time  of 
Jesus,  the  resurrection  and  judgment  are  connected  with 
a  change  of  earthly  relations  only.  Although  in  the 
accounts  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  first 
three  Gospels  there  is  no  mention  of  a  resurrection,  yet 
the  scene  is  earthly.  Paul  conceived  this  coming  as 
attended  with  a  resurrection  of  "  the  dead  in  Christ,"  a 
"  change  "  of  the  physical  organism  of  the  Christians  then 
living,  and  an  ascent  to  "  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,"  after 
which  they  were  to  be  "  forever "  with  him.*  His 
thought  of  a  renovated  earth  at  the  coming  of  Christ 
appears  to  be  a  reproduction  of  an  idea  expressed  in 
earlier  Jewish  literature,  f  In  this  conception  of  a  Mes- 
sianic crisis  as  it  existed  in  pre-Christian  and  early  Chris- 
tian thought  is  seen  the  significance  of  the  terms,  "  this 
age,"  and  "  the  age  to  come,"  the  former  of  which  was 
employed  to  designate  the  pre-Messianic,  and  the  latter 
the  Messianic  time,  or  "  the  kingdom  of  God."  The 
translation  of  the  Greek  word  for  "  age "  (aioov)  by 
"  world  "  has  contributed  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the 

*  i  Cor.  xv.  51  ff,  i  Thess.  iv.  13-18. 

f  Rom.  viii.  20-23  ;  cf.  Is.  Ixvi.  17  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  13. 


126       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRE7^ATIONS. 

Jewish  conception  of  the  two  great  world-periods  which 
were  conceived  to  be  separated  by  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah,  and  strengthened  the  tendency  to  read  modern 
Christian  ideas  of  the  life  to  come  into  many  New-Testa- 
ment passages.  When  after  the  crucifixion  it  appeared 
that  Jesus  had  not  realized  the  Messianic  expectations, 
the  truly  Messianic  age,  "  the  age  to  come,"  was  regarded 
as  still  in  the  future  to  be  ushered  in  by  his  second  ad- 
vent. Attention  to  this  fact  will  remove  obscurity  from 
many  texts  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  It  was,  however, 
natural  and  inevitable  that  these  national  Messianic  limita- 
tions should  in  the  course  of  time  fall  away,  and  that  with 
a  more  developed  conception  of  the  life  to  come  its  scene 
should  be  transferred  from  the  earth  to  the  heavenly 
regions.  This  idea  would  naturally  be  connected  with 
the  earlier  one  of  a  resurrection  of  the  saints  to  share  in 
the  joys  of  the  earthly  reign  of  the  Messiah  by  the  notion 
of  a  second  resurrection,  that  of  the  wicked,  and  perhaps 
a  general  judgment,  by  which  the  scene  of  earthly  life 
would  be  brought  to  a  close.  Hence  there  is  an  intima- 
tion of  a  second  resurrection  in  the  words  of  Paul,  "  The 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,"  and  in  the  Apocalypse  a 
judgment  is  mentioned  as  occurring  after  the  millennial 
reign  of  the  saints.*  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that 
this  more  developed  view  of  the  future  was  entertained 
by  the  Pharisees  of  the  time  of  Jesus. 

There  remains  now  to  be  considered  what  relation 
Jesus  held  to  the  beliefs  of  his  time  concerning  the  life  to 
come,  and  to  what  extent  he  may  be  regarded  as  teaching 
a  doctrine  respecting  it.  From  the  foregoing  review  of 
contemporary  Jewish  opinion  it  is  evident  that  he  found 
already  existing  a  definite  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 

*  Chap.  xx. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  \2J 

the  soul  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  which  was 
doubtless  held  subject  to  certain  limitations  imposed  by 
the  national  Messianic  expectations.  That  he  surpassed 
these  limitations  so  far  as  the  locality  of  the  life  to  come 
is  concerned,  and  did  not  conceive  of  it  as  an  earthly 
state  under  the  Messianic  reign,  appears  probable  from 
such  sayings  as  :  "  Lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in 
heaven  "  ;  "  Great  is  your  reward  in  heaven  "  ;  "  Rejoice 
that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven."  *  This  point  of 
view  is  the  only  one  that  was  consistent  with  his  con- 
ception of  his  Messiahship  and  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
spiritual  and  already  existing.  If  he  employed  the 
language  which  is  attributed  to  him  by  the  synoptists 
respecting  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven  to  sit  on  an  earthly  throne  of  judgment,  he  must 
have  entertained  the  popular  Jewish  belief  that  the 
Messianic  future  was  a  temporal  condition.  For  these 
apocalyptical  passages  unquestionably  indicate  a  descent 
of  the  Son  of  Man  to  the  earth  within  the  life-time  of  the 
then  existing  generation  to  "  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his 
glory  "  as  a  judge  of  the  nations.  They  are  in  accord 
with  the  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah's  earthly  reign,  and 
give  expression  to  such  hopes  as  his  followers  may  very 
likely  have  cherished,  who  as  Jews  conceived  of  the  life 
to  come  only  in  connection  with  the  national  Messianism. 
His  spiritual  conception  of  the  future  existence  of  the 
soul  in  a  heavenly  state  renders  it  very  probable  that  he 
did  not  employ  the  language  in  question. 

The  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding  the  resurrection  are  so 

fragmentary  and  obscure  that  no  complete  doctrine  can 

be  derived   from  them.      In  answering  the  question  of 

certain  Sadducees  concerning,  as  is  probable,  the  Phari- 

*  Matt.  v.  12,  vi.  20  ;    Luke  x.  20. 


128        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

saic  teaching  on  the  subject  he  expresses  himself  very 
positively  and  didactically  with  reference  to  two  points, 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  nature  of  the  body  in 
the  resurrection-state.  In  the  third  Gospel  he  is  repre- 
sented as  implying  that  the  resurrection  is  a  reward  of 
merit  which  only  those  shall  obtain  who  "  have  been 
accounted  worthy  "  of  it.  These  "  will  be  sons  of  Godr 
for  they  are  sons  of  the  resurrection,"  and  "  cannot  die 
any  more."  The  first  two  Gospels  omit  these  words  and 
report  him  to  have  said  only  that  those  who  are  raised  do 
not  marry,  but  "  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven."  *  In  an- 
other passage  in  the  third  Gospel  two  resurrections  are 
implied,  in  accordance  with  the  view  which  is  expressed 
in  Paul's  words,  "  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first," 
where  Jesus  is  reported  to  have  spoken  of  a  recompense 
to  be  had  "at  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous."  One 
can  hardly  refrain  from  raising  the  question  whether  there 
be  not  grounds  for  a  critical  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  words  :  "  They  who  have  been  accounted  worthy  to 
obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead," 
and,  "  Thou  shalt  be  recompensed  at  the  resurrection  of 
the  righteous."  They  are  akin  to  the  Pauline  view  in 
implying  two  resurrections ;  they  are  not  found  in  the 
other  two  Gospels  ;  and  there  is  a  hint  of  the  resurrection 
as  belonging  to  the  Messianic  time  conceived  as  in  the 
future  (also  a  Pauline  idea)  in  the  words,  "  to  obtain  that 
world,"  which  in  the  original  mean  "  to  obtain  that  age,"  f 
that  is,  the  age  to  come,  or  that  of  the  Messiah.  If 
Jesus  regarded  the  Messianic  age  as  that  in  which  he 
lived,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  as  already  come  with  him, 
he  cannot  consistently  have  spoken  in  this  way  of  the 

*  Matt.  xxii.  30-33  ;  Mark.  xii.  24-27  ;  Luke  xx.  34-39. 
f  Tov  ataovoS  kneivov 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  129 

resurrection,  and  his  teaching  of  a  reward  in  heaven  is  in- 
compatible with  the  teaching  of  a  recompense  in  the 
Messianic  age  which  was  temporal  and  earthly.  If,  now, 
this  critical  doubt  should  be  found  to  be  tenable,  and  if 
Jesus'  only  words  concerning  the  resurrection  were  to  the 
effect  that  they  who  are  raised  will  not  marry,  but  will  be 
as  the  angels  in  heaven,  and  that  they  cannot  die  any 
more,  then  we  have  as  positive  teachings  on  the  subject : 
I.  That  there  is  a  resurrection  ;  2.  That  in  the  resurrection- 
state  the  earthly  bodily  conditions  are  absent,  and  the 
raised  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven  ;  3.  That  the  resurrected 
cannot  die  any  more.  It  is  evident  that  much  is  wanting 
here  to  a  complete  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  For  it  is 
not  stated  who  are  to  be  raised,  whether  all  men  or  a 
part  of  mankind,  and  there  is  no  indication  of  .the  time 
when  the  resurrection  is  to  take  place,  and  whether  it 
means  an  immediate  entrance  of  the  soul  upon  spiritual 
conditions  at  death,  or  its  union  with  an  angelic  body 
after  an  indefinite  tarrying  in  hades.  To  one  who  should 
wish  to  found  a  complete  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  on 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  respecting  it  these  omissions  would 
be  embarrassing,  as  would  also  the  vague  reference  to  the 
Jewish  mythology  in  the  saying  that  the  resurrected  are 
"  as  the  angels,"  since  we  know  nothing  of  the  angelic 
nature  and  modes  of  existence.  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
Jesus  did  not  intend  in -the  sayings  in  question  to  formu- 
late a  complete  and  explicit  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
but  that  his  purpose  was  in  the  main  to  correct  the  crude 
and  materialistic  ideas  of  the  Jews  regarding  the  life  to 
come'.  If  the  incompleteness  of  his  teaching  on  this 
subject  was  intentional,  as  we  may  very  well  believe  that 
it  was  without  deciding  whether  it  resulted  from  reserve 
or  a  want  of  knowledge,  the  conclusion  does  not  appear 


130       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

improbable  that  he  did  not  think  that  his  great  cause  of 
righteousness  and  the  kingdom  of  God  would  be  promoted 
among  men  by  such  definite  information  as  might  furnish 
a  basis  for  a  dogmatic  thesis  on  the  resurrection. 

With  regard  to  a  state  of  existence  intermediate  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  Jesus  appears  to  have  adopted 
the  popular  Jewish  conception  of  sheol,  hades,  or  the 
underworld,  as  a  place  of  reward  and  punishment  prior 
to  the  resurrection.  In  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus  which  appears  to  be  intended  to  teach  that  the 
judgment  of  God  upon  men  does  not  always  accord  with 
that  of  their  fellow-men  upon  the  earth,*  it  is  represented 
that  Lazarus  was  at  his  death  carried  by  angels  to  Abra- 
ham's bosom,  that  is,  to  a  place  of  honor  in  the  under- 
world, while  the  rich  man  after  he  had  died  was  in 
torment  there.  These  two  places  in  hades,  which  it 
appears  were  separated  by  a  great  gulf,  are  evidently  the 
paradise  and  the  gehenna  of  the  Jewish  mythology.  It  is 
not  known,  however,  that  according  to  the  Jewish  con- 
ception of  the  underworld  the  inhabitants  of  the  two 
regions  could  see  and  converse  with  one  another ;  and  we 
may  regard  this  episode  in  the  parable  as  introduced  by 
poetic  license,  so  to  speak,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  pur- 
pose of  the  teaching,  which  was  not  to  formulate  a  doctrine 
in  regard  to  the  underworld.  The  popular  mythology 
appears  to  have  been  adopted  and  adapted  to  the  didactic 
end  in  view.  Luke  also  reports  that  on  the  cross  Jesus 
said  to  the  "  penitent  "  malefactor,  so-called  :  "  This  day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise."  In  view  of  these  facts 
it  is  certainly  unwarrantable  to  say  that  Jesus  did  not 
accept  the  current  Jewish  idea  of  the  underworld  as  the 
abode  of  souls  immediately  after  death.  If  he  spoke  these 

*  Luke  xvi.  19-31  ;  cf.  verse  15. 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  131 

words  to  the  malefactor,  he  must  have  believed  that  he 
would  himself  descend  into  that  region.  Yet  one  may 
accept  this  conclusion  while  holding  that  definite  dis- 
closures as  to  an  intermediate  state  constituted  no  part  of 
his  real  teaching.  The  traditional  conceptions  of  the 
people  among  whom  he  was  reared  were  a  part  of  his 
mental  furnishing,  and  he  could  not  but  employ  them  in 
.adapting  his  teaching  to  the  comprehension  of  his  hearers. 
But  not  to  deny,  even  apparently  to  accept  as  realities, 
Satan,  demons,  angels,  paradise,  hades,  gehenna,  and  a 
resurrection  out  of  the  underworld,  does  not  constitute 
these  things  a  part  of  his  teaching,  does  not  make  them 
real,  does  not  warrant  us  in  constructing  dogmas  upon 
them.  Had  he  taught  among  the  Greeks,  and  used  their 
hades  as  a  vehicle  of  his  ideas  or  an  illustration  of  his 
teaching,  it  would  not  follow  thence  that  the  Greek  hades 
was  anything  but  a  mythological  conception.  Somewhere 
the  line  must  be  drawn  between  the  things  which  he  knew 
and  was  inspired  to  teach  and  the  things  of  which  he  was 
not  informed  and  felt  no  call  to  teach.  The  dogmatist 
and  the  rationalist,  twin  brothers,  will  each  draw  this  line 
where  it  suits  his  prepossession  or  his  caprice.  The  critic 
must  draw  it  according  to  the  facts,  that  is,  as  he  is  taught 
by  the  record  to  draw  it.  Now  the  record  clearly  teaches 
him  that  there  are  certain  great  ideas  which  constituted 
the  substance  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  on  which  he  laid 
the  stress  of  his  ministry,  on  which  he  heroically  staked 
its  fortune  and  his  life — the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  men  ;  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
himself  its  king;  immortality,  righteousness,  justice,  mercy, 
love  to  God  and  man — principles  fundamental  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  orders  of  human  existence  and  essential  to 
human  salvation.  The  record  also  teaches  with  equal 


132        THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

clearness  that  on  certain  other  matters  he  placed  no 
emphasis,  that  in  fact  he  thought  them  to  be  unessential, 
such  as  the  mythological  ideas  of  his  times,  good  and  evil 
spirits,  details  of  the  resurrection,  arcana  of  the  under- 
world, particulars  of  the  life  to  come,  and  that  he  employed 
them  as  subordinate  and  subsidiary  to  his  great  aim  to 
bring  men  into  accord  with  one  another  and  with  God. 
How  to  make  a  right  discrimination  between  these  two 
groups  of  ideas  is  a  great  lesson ;  and  although  the  dog- 
matic theologian  does  not  look  into  it,  it  is  the  first  lesson 
that  the  interpreter  of  the  great  Teacher  should  learn. 

That  Jesus  had  a  vivid  conception  of  the  enormity  of 
sin  and  of  the  terrible  punishment  which  it  entails  is  evi- 
dent from  the  language  whether  literal  or  figurative  in 
which  he  speaks  of  it.  To  derive  from  his  words,  how- 
ever, an  explicit  and  detailed  doctrine  concerning  the 
fate  of  the  wicked  after  death  is  very  difficult  if  not 
impossible.  His  sayings  in  regard  to  the  judgment,  for 
example,  are  involved  in  great  obscurity.  The  words 
ascribed  to  him  respecting  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man 
to  a  judgment  on  the  earth  within  the  life-time  of  the 
generation  then  living,  including  the  celebrated  discourse 
in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  the  first  Gospel,  cannot  even 
if  they  are  genuine,  concern  the  final  destiny  of  mankind 
at  large.  But  apart  from  the  fact  that  they  have  never 
been  fulfilled,  they  are,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out, 
so  entirely  incompatible  with  his  idea  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  his  Messiahship,  that  their  spuriousness  may  be 
regarded  as  scarcely  questionable.  Other  sayings  respect- 
ing "the  judgment"  and  "  the  day  of  judgment"*  are 
too  vague  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  any  other  doctrine  than 
that  a  judgment  of  some  kind  awaits  all  unrighteousness. 

*Matt.  v.  22,  x.  15,  xi.  24,  xii.  36,  41,  42. 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  133 

It  is  evident  that  his  conception  of  the  divine  judgment 
transcended  the  popular  Jewish  belief  which  connected  it 
with  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  but  his  precise  view  of  it  is 
indeterminable.  His  very  definite  reference  to  gehenna, 
the  Jewish  place  of  punishment  in  the  underworld,  in 
connection  with  the  penalty  of  sin  presents  no  little  diffi- 
culty. In  the  first  place  it  is  not  clear,  as  has  already 
been  shown,  whether  or  no  he  held  the  popular  Jewish 
belief  that  the  wicked  would  have  no  resurrection,  but 
would  remain  in  the  "  everlasting  prison  "  in  sheol.  One 
passage  appears  to  indicate  the  contrary  in  which  he 
speaks  of  fearing  God  who  has  power  to  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  gehenna.*  Since  the  soul  was  not  sup- 
posed to  be  connected  with  the  body  after  death  until  the 
resurrection,  the  possible  punishment  here  referred  to 
could  not  be  inflicted  upon  the  unresurrected  occupant 
of  gehenna.  The  futility,  however,  of  attempting  to 
found  a  doctrine  upon  this  vague  and  isolated  passage  is 
manifest.  More  precise  are  other  references  to  gehenna, 
such  as :  "  Whoever  shall  say,  Fool !  shall  be  in  danger  of 
the  gehenna  of  fire"  ;  "  It  is  better  for  thee  that  one  of 
thy  members  should  perish  than  that  thy  whole  body 
should  go  away  into  gehenna."  f  This  appears  to  be  a 
distinctive  adoption  by  Jesus  of  the  Jewish  belief  in  the 
underworld-punishment  of  the  wicked,  since  he  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  declared  that  there  was  "  danger  " 
of  something  which  he  did  not  believe  to  exist.  The 
question,  however,  arises  whether  he  adopted  the  belief 

*  Matt.  x.  28. 

f  Matt.  v.  22,  29,  30;  Mark  ix.  43-48.  Mark  intensifies  the  saying  by 
adding  :  "  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched,"  in 
imitation  of  Isa.  Ixvi.  24.  What  Jesus  actually  said  is  of  course  in- 
determinable. 


134        THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

in  whole  or  only  in  part.  No  means  exist  for  answering- 
this  question  categorically,  but  important  results  must 
follow  from  any  conjectural  answer  to  it.  If  we  suppose 
him  to  have  adopted  it  in  whole  and  to  have  intended  his- 
adoption  of  it  as  a  doctrine  regarding  destiny,  then  it 
follows  that  he  actually  taught  that  there  is  a  realm  called 
sheol  under  the  surface  of  the  earth  to  which  the  souls  of 
the  dead  descend ;  that  this  is  divided  into  two  parts, 
paradise  and  gehenna ;  and  that  in  the  latter  is  an  "  ever- 
lasting prison  "  in  which  the  spirits  of  the  wicked  are 
confined,  and  from  which  there  is  no  release,  while  from 
paradise  the  good  will  be  resurrected  at  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah.  Whoever  is  not  willing  to  accept  this  my- 
thology as  the  Christian  doctrine  of  destiny  must  assume 
that  Jesus  adopted  the  Jewish  belief  on  the  subject  only 
in  part,  or  not  at  all  in  reality,  but  only  employed  the 
current  terms  in  order  to  impress  upon  the  popular  under- 
standing certain  important  spiritual  principles.  What  he 
was  intent  on  teaching  is  that  sin  entails  punishment,  and 
he  is  not  to  be  quoted  as  an  authority  on  the  topography 
of  the  underworld  and  the  Jewish  mythology  in  general. 
From  the  spiritual  character  of  his  teachings  in  general 
the  conclusion  appears  to  be  warranted  that  Jesus  did  not 
adopt  and  teach  the  Jewish  belief  as  to  the  underworld  in 
its  literal  import.  No  doubt  he  regarded  the  danger  which 
he  typified  by  "  the  fire  of  gehenna  "  as  a  very  grave  and 
very  real  danger;  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
the  reality  of  the  fire,  or  that  of  gehenna  as  an  underr 
world-locality,  was  a  capital  point  in  his  teaching.  How 
long  he  conceived  that  the  punishment  which  he  referred 
to  under  the  popular  symbol  of  gehenna-fire  would  con- 
tinue there  are  no  data  for  determining.  His  adoption  of 
the  terms  for  the  didactic  purpose  in  view  does  not  imply 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  135 

his  adoption  of  all  that  they  signified  to  the  popular  im- 
agination. It  would  appear,  accordingly,  that  a  resort  to 
the  analogy  of  his  teaching  is  the  only  means  of  deter- 
mining his  views  of  the  nature  and  duration  of  punish- 
ment. If,  then,  we  accept  Mark's  report  of  his  words  in 
reference  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit*  instead  of  the 
account  in  the  first  Gospel,  he  appears  to  have  taught 
that  there  was  one  offence  which  might  expose  the 
offender  to  an  indefinite  continuance  in  sinning  (aiooviou 
a/uapTrfjjaTO?).  But  even  if  it  were  established  that  this 
aeonian  duration  was  conceived  as  endless,  nothing  but 
the  possibility  of  such  a  state  is  here  implied.  In  fact 
Jesus  nowhere  expressly  affirms  the  endlessness  of  pun- 
ishment. On  the  other  hand  he  does  not  expressly 
declare  that  it  is  not  endless,  and  that  at  some  time  all 
the  consequences  of  sin  will  cease  to  exist.  In  fact,  on 
the  subject  of  destiny  he  maintained  a  remarkable  reserve 
and  reticence,  as  if  he  did  not  regard  an  explicit  teaching 
on  this  subject  as  an  essential  part  of  his  work.  His  great 
doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  promulgated  primarily  with  its  relation  to 
human  destiny  in  view,  but  rather  as  an  ethical-religious 
principle.  The  optimistic  inference  respecting  the  destiny 
of  man  which  may  legitimately  be  derived  from  it  is, 
however,  of  great  moral  and  religious  importance.  In  the 
teaching  of  the  father  who  goes  out  to  meet  the  returning 
prodigal,  placing  no  arbitrary  limits  of  "  probation  "  on  his 
repentance,  is  conveyed  a  deathless  hope  for  the  fallen 
soul.  More  than  a  hope  is  expressed  in  the  teaching  of 
the  good  shepherd  who  goes  forth  and  seeks  for  the  be- 

*  Mark  iii.  29.  Here  again  the  precise  words  of  Jesus  are  indeter- 
minable— a  fact  which  should  moderate  the  zeal  of  the  theologian  and  the 
maker  of  systems. 


136        THE   GOSPEL   AXD   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

flighted  estray  until  the  lost  is  found.  An  assurance  is 
here  given  that  the  unwearied  divine  love  can  never 
abandon  its  own.  While,  then,  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
distinctly  emphasizes  the  enormity  of  sin  and  the  dire 
consequences  of  a  wicked  life,  it  does  not  furnish  explicit 
dogmatic  statements  on  which  a  complete  doctrine  of 
human  destiny  can  be  established.*  One  who  delights  in 

*  Whether  Jesus'  view  of  the  life  to  come  was  substantially  that  of  the 
Pharisees  of  his  time,  and  if  it  differed  from  theirs,  how  and  to  what  extent, 
are  problems  difficult  of  solution.  If  the  synoptic  apocalyptic  sayings  as  to 
his  second  coming  are  rightly  attributed  to  him,  he  must  have  held  with  the 
Jews  that  the  Messiah's  advent  denoted  "  the  end,"  and  his  reign  the  future, 
"eternal"  condition  of  men,  although  from  this  point  of  view  the  omission 
of  the  resurrection  is  remarkable.  In  the  Enoch-Parables  (li.  I,  2,)  a  general 
resurrection  is  mentioned  at  the  coming  of  Messiah,  at  which  the  righteous 
are  to  be  "  selected  "  for  salvation.  If,  however,  the  synoptic  apocalypse  is 
not  to  be  ascribed  to  Jesus,  the  question  arises  whether  or  no  he  transcended 
in  his  conception  of  the  future  the  Jewish  Messianism,  and  thought  of  the 
life  to  come  in  accordance  with  the  modern  Christian  idea.  While  from  the 
exegetical  point  of  view  such  a  rupture  with  the  prevalent  ideas  of  his  time 
may  appear  improbable,  and  is  in  fact  generally  so  regarded,  his  spiritual 
conception  of  his  Messiahship,  which  did  not  admit  at  all  of  the  materialistic 
apocalypse,  may  well  be  urged  in  favor  of  it.  One  can  hardly  think  of  him 
in  view  of  his  evident  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  believing  with 
the  writer  or  writers  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  that  the  abode  of  the  blessed  in 
the  future  was  to  be  Jerusalem,  while  the  wicked  would  be  consigned  to  an 
"accursed  valley  "  (probably  that  of  Hinnom)  to  enhance  by  the  spectacle 
of  their  eternal  misery  the  bliss  of  the  saved.  (See  Enoch  xxvii.  3  ;  Ixii.  12  ; 
cviii.  14,  15.) 

The  Jewish  literature  of  the  time  immediately  antecedent  and  subsequent 
to  Christ  contains  no  intimation  of  a  deliverance  of  the  wicked  from  their 
penal  doom.  In  the  synoptic  apocalyptic  eschatology  the  "Depart  from 
me  "  appears  in  itself  to  be  final.  To  the  foolish  virgins  the  definitive 
answer  is,  "I  know  you  not."  In  the  fourth  Gospel  those  who  have  done 
evil  come  forth  to  "  a  resurrection  of  condemnation."  Yet  the  later  Jewish 
theology  taught  a  release  of  some  from  the  torments  of  gehenna  (Weber,  §  74), 
and  the  Christian  tradition  of  the  preaching  of  Christ  in  the  underworld  is 
not  without  significance  in  this  connection.  While  Jesus  gave  no  direct  and 
definite  expression  to  the  "eternal  hope,"  it  is  certainly  unwarrantable  to 


THE    TEACHING   OF  JESUS.  1 37 

constructing  an  eschatology  will  find  scanty  encourage- 
ment and  meagre  material  in  his  words.  He  appeared  to 
think  it  of  vastly  greater  moment  that  men  should  con- 
cern themselves  with  what  is  required  for  righteousness  in 
this  world  than  with  what  the  next  world  may  have  to 
disclose — with  justice,  mercy,  and  love,  rather  than  with 
celestial  or  infernal  arcana.  Yet  his  knowledge  of  man 
and  his  faith  in  God  gave  him  a  cheerful  view  of  human 
destiny.  Preeminent  among  those  sons  of  hope  who 
have  been  the  immortal  teachers  of  men,  he  was  the  divine 
optimist. 

maintain  that  he  did  not  cherish  it  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  generally 
entertained  by  the  Jews  of  his  time.  The  genius  of  the  great  Teacher  cannot 
be  thus  limited  who  so  far  transcended  his  age  in  spiritual  insight  and 
humanity.  In  view  of  his  great  doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  with 
which  the  definitive  exclusion  of  any  repentant  soul  from  the  higher  life  by 
divine  decree  is  totally  irreconcilable,  and  in  the  light  of  the  passages 
referred  to  in  the  text,  there  appears  to  be  reason  for  believing  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  entertained  the  thought  of  the  rejection  of  any  returning 
prodigal  or  of  the  final  abandonment  of  any  benighted  estray.  With  his 
faith  in  God,  in  man,  and  in  his  own  cause,  he  could  not  have  held  any  view 
of  human  destiny  which  is  incompatible  with  the  consummation  of  everlasting 
"joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God."  On  the  views  of  the  Jews 
as  to  the  life  to  come  the  student  may  consult  Schwally,  Das  Leben  nach 
dem  Tode  nach  den  Vorstellungen  des  alten  Israel  und  des  Judentums,  ein- 
shliesslich  des  Volksglaubeus  im  Zeitalter  Christi,  1892,  and  Schurer,  A 
History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  New  York,  1891,  ii. 
2,  pp.  179-184. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN   INTERPRETATION. 

AMONG  the  interpretations  of  the  gospel  which 
criticism  discerns  in  the  New  Testament  that  of 
the  Jewish-Christian  followers  of  Jesus  naturally  presents 
itself  first  for  consideration,  since  it  is  that  of  the  original 
Christian  community,  and  may  be  regarded  as  represent- 
ing more  nearly  than  any  other  the  impressions  of  the 
immediate  disciples  of  the  Master.  Impressions,  indeed, 
it  is,  rather  than  a  definite  system  of  belief,  which  we 
shall  here  have  to  deal  with.  For  the  Jewish-Christian 
tendency  had  no  great  champion  in  the  character  of  a 
religious  genius  and  literary  master,  like  Paul  and  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  who  was  able  to  give  it  an 
intellectual  expression  and  embodiment  in  a  work  of 
renown.  Champions  it  must  be  conceded,  however,  to 
have  had  in  the  persons  of  those  men  whom  Paul  has  im- 
mortalized under  the  title  of  Pillar-Apostles,  Peter,  James 
the  brother  of  Jesus,*  and  John.  These  stood  at  the  head 
of  the  Jewish-Christian  Church  in  Jerusalem,  and  regarded 
themselves  as  charged  with  the  ministry  "  to  the  circum- 
cised." f  The  interpretation  of  Christianity  which  pre- 
vailed there  was  strictly  Judaistic.  The  Jewish  believer 
in  Jesus  stood  forth,  indeed,  from  his  fellow:countrymen 
distinguished  by  his  acceptance  of  the  Nazarene  as  the 

*Mark.  vi.  3  ;  Gal.  i.  19,  ii.  9,  12.  f  Gal.  ii.  9. 

138 


THE  JE  WISH-  CHRIS  TIAN  INTERPRE  TA  TION.       1 39 

Messiah,  but  it  was  not  in  his  thought  to  separate  himself 
in  any  other  respect  from  his  people  and  their  law  and 
customs.  He  was  still  a  worshipper  in  the  temple  and 
a  zealot  for  the  law.*  As  a  believer  in  the  ancient  cove- 
nant of  Jahveh  and  His  people  he  looked  for  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promises  made  through  the  prophets  that  from 
Zion  should  the  law  of  God  go  forth  and  the  word  of  God 
from  Jerusalem.  But  to  him  the  acceptance  of  the  Mes- 
siah by  men  of  other  nationalities  and  their  admission 
into  the  Christian  community  implied  their  submission  to 
the  Jewish  rite  of  circumcision.  The  account  in  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Acts  of  a  vision  of  Peter  and  his  baptism  of 
gentiles  without  circumcision  cannot  be  regarded  as 
historical  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events.  That  the 
"  pillars "  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  adhered  to  the 
strictly  Jewish-Christian  view  in  reference  to  the  admission 
of  gentiles  is  evident  from  the  facts  that  Paul  thought 
that  the  matter  at  issue  between  himself  and  the  Jewish 
party  must  be  adjusted  with  them  "  privately,"  else  he 
"  should  run,  or  had  run  in  vain,"  f  and  that  the  emis- 
saries who  at  Antioch  prevailed  upon  Peter  no  longer  to 
eat  with  the  gentile  converts  "  came  from  James,"  and 
were  undoubtedly  carrying  out  the  wishes  of  their 
superior.:}:  It  may  be  regarded  as  a  fairly  well-established 

*  Acts  ii.  46,  iii.  i,  xxi.  20  f.  f  Gal.  ii.  2. 

\  Gal.  ii.  12.  Lechler's  ingenious  attempt  to  show  that  the  Jewish  apos- 
tles were  not  a  party  to  the  conflict  with  Paul  cannot  be  regarded  as  success- 
ful. Das  apostol.  u.  nachapostol.  Zeitalter,  3te  Ausg.  1885,  pp.  160  ff. 
See  also:  Zeller,  Vortrage,  etc.,  pp.  202  ff  ;  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum. 
1887,  pp.  43  ff  ;  Immer,  Neutest.  Theol.,  pp.  177  ff  ;  Baur.  Paulus,  etc.,  2te 
Ausg.  i.  pp.  119  ff  ;  Lipsius,  Art.  "  Apostelconvent "  in  Schenkel's  Bibel- 
Lexicon,  i.  p.  144  ;  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commeniar,  1889,  i.  p.  367  ;  Havet, 
Les  Origines  du  Christianisme,  iv.  pp.  138  ff  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  in  das 
N.  T.,  1875,  pp.  593  ff. 


140        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

conclusion  of  criticism  that  a  correct  view  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Jewish-Christian  apostles  toward  the  admission  of 
the  gentiles  to  the  Church  and  toward  the  mission  of  Paul 
must  be  derived  from  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  not  from 
the  book  of  Acts,  the  "  tendency  "  of  which  to  represent 
the  original  apostles  as  occupied  with  the  gentile  mission 
cannot  well  be  denied.* 

The  beliefs  of  the  Jewish  Christians  respecting  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  their  Christology,  may  be  substantially 
gathered  from  the  first  Gospel  and  the  discourses  ascribed 
to  Peter  in  the  Acts.  While  the  latter  are  probably  by 
no  means  verbatim  reports,  but  rather  compositions  of  the 
author  of  the  book,  they  appear  to  rest  upon  an  historical 
basis  and  to  be  in  the  main  free  from  Pauline  influence 
and  dogmatic  reflection.  Peter,  then,  is  reported  to  have 
said  of  Jesus  that  he  was  "  a  man  approved  of  God  to  you 
by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  wrought 
by  him  "  ;  that  "  by  the  hand  of  godless  men  "  he  had 
been  crucified  and  slain  ;  but  that  "  God  raised  him  up, 
having  loosed  the  pains  of  death,  because  it  was  not  pos- 
sible that  he  should  be  held  by  it,"  and  "  exalted  him  by 
His  right  hand  as  a  leader  and  Saviour  to  give  repentance 
to  Israel  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  f  Noteworthy  here  are 
the  limitation  of  the  office  of  Jesus  as  Saviour  to  "  Israel," 
in  accordance  with  the  Jewish-Christian  point  of  view,  and 
the  absence  of  all  traces  of  the  dogma  of  the  expiatory  or 
atoning  effect  of  his  death.  As  to  this  latter  doctrine, 

*  See  Schneckenburger,  Zweck  der  Apostelgesch.,  1841,  pp.  61-151  ; 
Zeller,  Apostelgesch.,  1854,  pp.  216  ff  ;  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  etc., 
pp.  280  ff  ;  Weizsacker,  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  2te  Ausg.  1890,  pp.  42  ff  ; 
Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  pp.  366  ff  ;  Holtzmann,  Hand-Commentar, 
i.  pp.  317-322. 

f  Acts  ii.  22-25,  v.  31. 


THE  JE  WISH-  CHRIS  TIA  N  IN  TERPRE  TA  Tl ON.      1 4 1 

however,  it  should  be  said  that  while  the  distinctive 
foundation  of  it  as  a  part  of  a  dogmatic  system  was  first 
made  by  Paul,  it  is  probable  that  it  was  not  long 
strange  to  Jewish-Christian  thought.  The  attempt  to 
reconcile  the  death  of  Jesus  with  his  Messianic  office 
would  naturally  lead  men  of  Jewish  race,  to  whom  the 
idea  of  a  sacrifice  for  sin  was  familiar,  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  did  not  simply  die  as  a  malefactor,  but,  as  the  Son 
of  God,  gave  his  life  for  men.  The  occurrence  of  a  con- 
nection of  his  death  with  the  idea  of  a  u  ransom  "  and  of 
his  blood  with  "  the  remission  of  sins  "  in  the  synoptic 
tradition,  which  was  essentially  Jewish-Christian,  appears 
to  confirm  this  conclusion.*  That  Jesus  was  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  that  is,  the  one  foretold  by  the  prophets,  was  a 
cardinal  principle  in  the  circle  of  ideas  under  considera- 
tion. This  was  not  held  as  a  self-evident  article  of  faith 
but  as  a  doctrine  which  required  proof,  since,  in  fact, 
nothing  could  be  more  incongruous  w7ith  the  Jewish  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah  than  was  the  entire  earthly  fortune 
of  Jesus.  Accordingly,  since  no  proof  could  be  more 
effective  for  a  Jew  than  that  derived  from  his  sacred 
books,  passages  were  found  in  the  Old  Testament  which, 
when  treated  by  the  methods  of  interpretation  then  in 
vogue,  could  easily  be  made  to  yield  the  desired  confirma- 
tion. The  predominant  tendency  to  establish  this  doc- 
trine distinguishes  the  first  Gospel  which  shows  an 
extensive  perversion  of  Old-Testament  texts  in  this  in- 
terest^ and  in  the  discourse  of  Peter  in  the  Acts  already 
referred  to  passages  from  Psalms  xvi.  and  ex.  are  very 
arbitrarily  forced  into  the  service  of  the  demonstration  in 

*  See  page  112. 

f  This  subject  is  fully  treated  in  the  author's  Gospel-Criticism  and  His- 
torical Christianity,  Chapters  IX.  and  X. 


142         THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

question  by  a  method  which  if  admitted  to  be  valid  would 
put  an  end  to  the  rational  interpretation  of  ancient 
writings.* 

The  interest  which  was  felt  among  the  primitive 
Christians  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  is  apparent  in  the 
accounts  of  his  wonderful  birth  of  a  virgin  whose  concep- 
tion was  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  From  the  Jewish  point 
of  view  a  genealogical  table  which  should  show  his  natural 
descent  from  David  would  appear  to  tend  to  establish  his 
Messiahship.  But  such  a  table  would  be  manifestly 
worthless  from  the  Jewish  genealogical  point  of  view,  if 
Joseph  were  not  his  father.  The  attempt  to  hold  in 
thought  and  unite  the  two  conceptions  of  a  natural 
descent  and  a  supernatural  generation  shows  the  naivett 
and  illogicalness  of  the  primitive  Christian  intelligence. 
If,  as  is  very  probable,  the  former  was  the  original  idea, 
the  fact  that  it  was  neutralized  by  the  latter  appears  to 
indicate  the  strength  of  a  tendency  to  idealize  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus.  For  a  supernatural  generation 
formed  no  part  of  the  original  idea  of  the  Messiah  who 
was  to  be  a  lineal  descendant  of  David,  and  the  gene- 
alogies show  that  this  notion  was  probably  not  the  primi- 
tive one  among  the  Christians.  But,  as  the  anointed 
(Xpiffro?),  he  was  doubtless  conceived  as  in  intimate 
relations  with  the  divine  Spirit  which  was  supposed  to 
have  inspired  the  prophets,  and  which  according  to  one 
tradition  was  given  to  him  "  without  measure."  That 
even  from  the  Jewish-Christian  point  of  view,  however, 
the  supernatural  generation  of  Jesus  was  not  thought  to 
be  essential  to  his  Messiahship  is  evident  from  the  later 

*  The  original  intention  of  the  writers  of  these  passages  to  apply  them  to 
the  circumstances  of  their  times  is  so  obvious  as  not  to  require  elucidation. 
To  interpret  a  writing  is  to  ascertain  the  intention  of  the  writer. 


THE  JE  WISH-  CHRIS  TIA  N  IN  TERPRE  TA  TION.       1 4  3 


history  of  the  two  sects  into  which  the  Jews  who  believed 
in  him  were  divided  on  this  question,*  and  from  the 
oldest  Gospel,  that  of  Mark,  which  contains  no  account  of 
the  mysterious  virgin-birth.  It  is  also  significant  that 
there  is  no  allusion  to  this  event  in  the  discourses  of 
Peter,  as  reported  in  the  Acts,  and  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 
The  communication  of  the  Spirit  at  the  baptism  appears 
to  have  satisfied  the  tradition  as  known  to  Mark,  and 
from  this  point  of  view  the  supernatural  generation  would 
appear  to  be  superfluous.  It  is  probable,  then,  that  the 
legend  of  the  miraculous  conception  took  its  rise  /ir 


the  interest  of  intensifying  the  idea  of  Jesus'  relation 
the  Spirit,  and  of  giving  it  an  expression  which  sho  v 
be  more  radical  and  inward  than  that  of  the  story  oi  • 
the  baptism.  That  the  two  should  be  entertained  and 
recorded  together,  although  one  of  them  renders  the 
other  superfluous,  is  not  surprising  when  we  consider  the 
small  part  which  reflection  plays  in  the  formation  of  tra- 
ditions. It  is  probable  that  out  of  this  tendency  to  exalt 
and  legitimatize  the  Messianic  office  of  Jesus  proceeded 
the  story  of  the  temptation,  which  in  the  first  and  third 
Gospels  has  received  a  highly  legendary  form  and  color- 
ing. As  Messiah  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be 
shown  at  the  outset  to  be  superior  in  conflict  to  the  great 
enemy  Satan.  Accordingly,  he  is  no  sooner  furnished  at 
the  baptism  with  the  Spirit  than  he  is  led  into  the  wilder- 
ness to  win  over  the  power  of  evil  the  great  victory 
which  should  be  symbolical  of  the  issue  of  his  entire 
mission.  That  his  whole  career  was  conceived  as  a 

*  The  Ebionites  held  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  was  endowed 
with  the  Spirit  at  the  baptism,  while  the  Nazarenes  maintained  the  super- 
natural generation.  See  Baur,  Vorlesungen  uber  die  christl.  Dogmen- 
gesch.,  1865,  i.  i,  p.  145. 


144        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS, 

struggle  with  Satan  appears  to  be  indicated  in  the  re- 
mark with  which  the  third  evangelist  concludes  his 
account  of  the  temptation,  that  the  Devil  departed  from 
him  ';  for  a  season." 

Another  doctrine  which  could  be  developed  only  in  the 
Jewish-Christian  consciousness  was  that  of  the  second 
coming  or  Parousia  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  As  his 
death  and  burial  without  a  resurrection  would  have  been 
to  Jewish  believers  the  death  and  burial  of  his  Messiah- 
ship,  so  without  a  second  coming  in  glory  and  power  he 
would  be  a  Messiah  without  a  kingdom.  A  Messiah  who 
should  be  a  great  spiritual  teacher  and  die  for  his  convic- 
tions remained  unintelligible  to  the  Jewish  mind,  although 
the  tradition  clearly  presents  such  a  view  as  that  of  Jesus 
himself.  A  suffering  and  crucified  Messiah  could  only  be 
accepted  after  it  had  been  shown  by  a  rabbinical  exegesis 
that  what  had  happened  to  him  had  been  intended  in  the 
divine  counsel,  and  foretold  by  the  prophets.  Hence 
Peter  declares  in  Acts  that  it  was  "  by  the  settled  purpose 
and  foreknowledge  of  God  "  that  Jesus  had  met  his  fate 
"  at  the  hands  of  godless  men,"  and  Luke  represents  that 
after  the  resurrection,  when  Jesus  met  two  disciples  on 
the  way  to  Emmaus,  he  made  apparent  to  them  that  "  the 
Christ  should  suffer  these  things,  and  enter  into  his  glory  " 
by  an  elucidation  "  beginning  with  Moses  and  all  the 
prophets."*  In  this  tradition  is  manifest  the  interest 
which  was  felt  in  establishing  by  the  authority  of  Jesus 
himself  the  sort  of  exegesis  which  could  make  the  Old 
Testament  yield  proofs  of  his  Messiahship,  just  as  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  he  is  made  to  quote  a  passage  from  a  Psalm 
to  make  it  appear  that  the  treachery  of  Judas  was  fore- 
told, if  not  predetermined. f  The  strength  of  this  ten- 

*  Acts  ii.  23  ;  Luke  xxiv.  26  f.  f  John  xiii.  18  f. 


THE  JE  WISH-CHRIS  TIAN  IN TERPRE  />/  TJuN.       14$ 

dency  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the  discourse  ascribed 
to  Peter  in  the  second  chapter  of  Acts  he  does  not  appear 
to  be  willing  to  leave  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
Jesus  to  rest  upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  but  seeks 
to  support  them  by  an  unwarrantable  exegesis  of  words 
supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the  "  patriarch  "  and 
"  prophet  "  David.  The  significance  of  this  procedure  is 
manifest  when  we  consider  that  the  appeal  to  the  Old 
Testament  shows  the  conviction  that  the  resurrection  and 
ascension  were  a  necessity  from  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
and  the  fulfilment  of  a  divine  decree  and  foreordination. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  relation  of  this  apprehension 
of  these  events  to  the  production  of  a  belief  in  them,  it 
was  evidently  thought  to  be  necessary  to  a  confirmation 
of  them  to  the  minds  of  those  at  least  who  had  no 
other  proof.*  A  further  advance  in  the  idealization  of 
the  Messiahship  is  indicated  in  the  conception  of  an 
exalted  position  held  by  Jesus  after  his  ascension,  all 
power  being  given  to  him  in  heaven  and  on  earth. f  Ac- 
cordingly he  is  represented  as  standing  on  the  right  hand 
of  God,  or  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power.J  These 
conceptions  were  preliminary  to  that  of  a  great  conclud- 
ing event  which  was  to  be  a  world-catastrophe. 

*  A  discussion  of  the  resurrection  with  the  hypotheses  of  bodily  resusci- 
tation, spiritual  manifestation,  vision,  etc.,  cannot  be  undertaken  here. 
Regarding  the  ascension,  however,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  no  definite 
statement  of  it  as  a  fact  is  given  in  the  Gospels.  There  is  no  intima- 
tion of  it  in  the  first  two  Gospels  if  we  except  the  probably  spurious 
appendix  to  the  second.  The  first  Gospel  locates  the  last  interview  of  Jesus 
with  his  disciples  in  Galilee,  while  the  third  reports  that  he  "parted" 
from  them  at  Bethany  directly  after  the  resurrection.  Only  in  Acts  do  we 
find  the  story  developed  and  a  definite  account  given  of  an  ascension  in  a 
"  cloud  "  after  a  forty  days'  sojourn  on  the  earth.  Acts  i.  3,  9. 

f  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  \  Acts  vii.  55  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  64. 


146         THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

In  conceiving  of  a  world-catastrophe,  Jewish-Christian 
thought  was  consistent  with  itself.  For  that  the  Mes- 
sianic kingdom  was  to  be  a  world-kingdom  was  a  Jewish 
conception  which  all  the  spiritual  teaching  of  Jesus  had 
not  been  able  to  overcome  in  the  minds  of  his  followers. 
Unless,  then,  all  the  Messianic  hopes  of  his  disciples  were 
to  perish  forever  at  his  death,  unless  they  themselves 
were  to  have  no  part  in  the  glorious  kingdom,  and  were 
doomed  to  go  down  into  sheol  without  seeing  its  advent, 
they  must  believe  that  he  was  presently  to  descend  to 
the  earth  in  person,  and  accomplish  that  work  to  which 
his  former  career  was  only  a  prelude  closing  with  a  tra- 
gedy. If  the  "age  to  come"  were  not  a  phantom  or 
a  dream ;  if  all  things  were  not  to  remain  as  they  had 
been  ;  if  the  bonds  of  oppression  were  ever  to  be  loosed, 
and  the  righteous  vindicated  and  avenged, — then  must  he 
whom  they  believed  to  be  the  Messiah  really  manifest 
himself  as  such,  and  establish  his  kingdom  with  becoming 
pomp  and  power.  Only  by  this  thought  of  the  Parousia, 
the  belief  in  which  was  universal  and  dominant  among 
the  early  Christians,  could  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  be 
reconciled  in  the  minds  of  Jewish  Christians  with  the 
termination  of  his  earthly  career,  which  they  were  able  to 
regard  only  as  an  ignominy  and  a  failure.  No  better  illus- 
tration is  furnished  in  early  Christian  literature  of  the 
transformation  of  the  gospel  effected  by  Jewish-Christian 
thought  under  the  dominant  influence  of  the  Messianic 
idea  than  is  presented  in  one  of  the  discourses  of  Peter  in 
Acts  in  which  he  exclaims :  "  Repent,  therefore,  and  turn 
from  your  ways,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  in 
order  that  the  times  of  refreshing  may  come  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  that  He  may  send  forth  Christ 
Jesus  who  was  before  appointed  for  you  ;  whom  heaven, 


THE  JE  WISH-  CHRIS  T1A  N  IN  TERPRE  TA  TION.       1 47 

indeed,  must  receive  until  the  times  of  a  restoration  of 
all  things,  of  which  God  spake  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy 
prophets  from  the  days  of  old."  *  Jesus  had  indeed 
preached  repentance,  but  he  declared  at  the  same  time 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  had  already  come.  To  him 
there  was  no  other  palingenesis  than  that  spiritual  one 
which  his  teaching  should  effect,  and  he  did  not  imagine 
that  heaven  must  "  receive  "  him  until  the  time  of  an 
apocalyptic  "  restoration  of  all  things."  But  to  Jewish- 
Christian  thought  the  past  was  stale  and  flat,  a  sad  round 
of  weariness  and  oppression  ;  and  nothing  short  of  apoca- 
lypses and  a  world-catastrophe,  a  descent  of  the  Son  of 
Man  with  the  clouds,  as  he  had  been  seen  to  go  up,  and 
a  dramatic  judgment  of  all  nations  before  his  "  throne," 
could  realize  its  Messianic  dream. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  active  principle 
•of  the  Christian  life  appears  to  have  originated  in  the 
Jewish-Christian  circle  of  thought.  As  it  was  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  f  that  Jesus  as  Messiah  was  endowed  or  anointed, 
so  this  influence  or  charism  was  supposed  to  be  effective 
in  the  disciples  and  early  believers  for  the  carrying  on  of 
his  work.  Accordingly,  the  promise  of  Jesus  to  his  dis- 
ciples is  recorded  that  the  Spirit  of  their  Father  will  speak 
in  them,  J  and  they  are  commanded  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem 
after  the  resurrection  until  they  are  endowed  with  power 
from  on  high.§  This  promise  is  represented  in  the  second 
•chapter  of  Acts  as  having  been  fulfilled  by  a  great  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  in  accord- 
ance, as  was  supposed,  with  a  prophecy  of  Joel.  The 
opinion  hardly  needs  defence  that  the  narrative  in  ques- 
tion is  not  to  be  regarded  as  historical  in  detail.  The 

*Actsiii.  19-22.  f  Ttvevfj.a  ayiov. 

4  Matt.  x.  20.  §  Luke  xxiv.  49  ;  cf.  Acts  i.  5. 


148        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

speaking  with  tongues'*  which  is  represented  as  one  of  the 
expressions  of  the  Spirit,  and  evidently  means  according 
to  the  intention  of  the  author  the  employment  by  the 
disciples  of  a  large  number  of  foreign  languages  without 
having  learned  them,  has  no  subsequent  confirmation, 
and  was  without  doubt  differently  apprehended  by  Paul, 
as  a  phenomenon  which  came  under  his  observation. f  If, 
then,  abstraction  be  made  of  all  that  is  legendary  in  the 
narrative,  the  historical  fact  which  is  its  basis  will  appear 
to  be  that  the  disciples  believed  themselves  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  the  same  Spirit  that  qualified  Jesus  for -his 
work.  They  believed  that  the  Christian  community,  or 
Church,  began  to  exist  with  the  communication  of  this 
Spirit,  and  that  this  gift  or  charism  did  not  concern  them 
alone,  but  was  bestowed  upon  all  who  became  associated 
with  them.  It  was  supposed  to  be  communicated  at  bap- 
tism into  the  name  of  Jesus  upon  repentance,  and  Peter 
is  said  to  have  declared  to  the  "  men  of  Judea  and  all  who 
dwell  at  Jerusalem  "  that  the  promise  was  to  them  and  to 
their  children  "  and  to  all  who  dwell  afar  off.":}:  Again  it 
is  related  that  although  certain  Samaritans  had  been  bap- 
tized into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Holy  Spirit 
had  not  yet  fallen  upon  any  of  them,  and  that  they 
received  it  only  when  Peter  and  John  laid  their  hands 
upon  them.g  On  the  contrary,  it  is  recorded  that  in  the 
case  of  Cornelius  and  the  gentiles  who  with  him  were  con- 
verted by  the  preaching  of  Peter  the  Spirit  was  poured 
out  on  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues,  and  that 
because  of  this  they  were  directly  baptized.]  In  the  case 
of  certain  disciples  of  John  who  "  did  not  even  hear 

*  y\Go66ai<i  XaXelv.  f  i  Cor.  xiv.  2  ;  Rom.  viii.  26. 

J  Acts  ii.  39.  §  Acts  viii.  17. 

I  Acts  x.  44-48. 


THE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  INTERPRETATION.       149 

whether  there  was  a  Holy  Spirit,"  both  baptism  into  the 
name  of  Jesus  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  preceded  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit  and  the  speaking  with  tongues.* 
While  the  external  phenomena  which  are  reported  to 
have  accompanied  the  endowment  with  the  Spirit  are 
involved  in  some  obscurity  which  it  would  be  foreign  to 
the  present  purpose  to  attempt  to  clear  up,f  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  conception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
Jewish-Christian  community  does  not  appear  to  have 
involved  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  was  of  later 
origin.;):  In  accordance  with  the  thought  of  Jesus  they 
regarded  the  Spirit  as  an  expression  of  the  activity  of  the 
one  God,  or  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Father.§  It  may  not  be 
possible  to  determine  precisely  what  powers  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  was  conceived  to  bestow  upon  those  who 
received  it,  but  that  it  was  regarded  as  a  special  charism 
qualifying  the  recipient  to  give  infallible  teaching  either 
by  the  pen  or  by  the  spoken  word,  is  nowhere  implied. 
In  fact,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  conceived  as  a 
gift  bestowed  exclusively  on  those  who  were  appointed 
to  teach,  since  all  converts  are  represented  to  have 
received  it.  One  can  only  speculate  about  the  precise 
psychological  fact  which  the  accounts  in  Acts  regarding 

*  Acts  xix.  1-6. 

f  The  student  may  consult  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Glossolalie,  etc.,  1850; 
Zeller,  Apostelgesch.,  pp.  no  ff ;  Meyer,  Commentar,  iii.  pp.  51-60; 
Schenkel,  Art.  "Zungenreden"  in  Bibel-Lexicon,  v.  p.  732  ;  Lechler,  Das 
apostol.  u.  nach  apostol.  Zeitalter,  pp.  23  ff  ;  Weizsacker,  Das  apostol. 
Zeitalter,  2te  Ausg.  pp.  589  ff. 

\  Lamson,  The  Church  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  1860.  Of  later 
origin  also  is  probably  the  commandment  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  to  baptize  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  since  the  baptism  of  the 
apostolic  age  was  into  the  name  of  Jesus.  See  Wittichen,  Jahrb.  fur 
deutsche  Theologie,  vii.  p.  336. 
Matt.  x.  20. 


150       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  bestowal  of  the  Spirit  endeavor  to  represent.  Some 
other  matters  are  also  involved  in  obscurity.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  the  early  Christians  experienced  a  spiritual 
quickening  which  they  believed  to  come  directly  from 
God,  that  they  held  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  and 
preached  repentance  and  baptism  into  his 'name  together 
with  brotherly  love. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   PAULINE   TRANSFORMATION. 

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  interpretations  and  apocalyp- 
tic were  fortunately  a  transient  phase  of  the  his- 
torical development  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  Within 
the  circle  of  the  original  apostles  the  word  of  the  great 
Teacher,  which  was  essentially  a  message  to  mankind, 
could  not  have  had  an  apprehension  and  exposition 
adapted  to  the  requirements  of  a  universal  religion. 
Among  them  was  no  man  of  a  religious  genius  and  spirit- 
ual greatness  equal  to  the  emergency  which  was  produced 
by  the  question  whether  Christianity  should  become  a 
world-religion  or  remain  the  tenet  of  a  Jewish  sect.  They 
were  essentially  Messianists  (if  the  word  may  be  allowed), 
and  would  have  stood  "  gazing  up  into  heaven  "  to  discern 
the  signs  of  the  Messiah's  coming,  until  weary  of  the 
fruitless  waiting  they  would  have  abandoned  the  cause  of 
him  whose  kingdom  did  not  come,  and  have  left  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  to  the  fortunes  of  the  flood  of  rabbini- 
cal maxims.  Their  propaganda,  which  was  nothing  if 
not  Messianic,  would  soon  have  come  to  an  end,  when 
men  who  asked  for  the  signs  of  the  Messiah's  advent 
should  receive  the  despairing  answer  that  a  day  of  the 
Lord  was  as  a  thousand  years,*  and  the  propagandists 
unable  to  endure  the  reproach  of  a  king  so  tardy  would 
have  been  absorbed  by  the  powerful  Judaism  about  them 

*  2  Peter  iii.  8. 


I$2        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

or  scattered  by  reason  of  its  calamities  to  the  four  quar- 
ters of  the  globe.  The  critical  alternative,  then,  with 
which  the  gospel  was  confronted  shortly  after  the  death 
of  Jesus,  was  to  remain  in  the  custody  of  the  Jewish  apos- 
tles and  perish,  or  to  be  set  free  and  exposed  to  the  perils 
of  liberty.  In  its  liberation  it  must  run  the  risk  of  trans- 
formation. For  it  could  be  set  free  only  by  being  appre- 
hended afresh  and  embodied  in  a  new  system  of  thought. 
That  this  system  of  thought  could  under  the  circumstances 
only  be  Jewish,  and  the  result  of  the  transformation  a 
more  or  less  modified  Judaism,  is  evident.  For  no  gen- 
tile thinker  was  likely  to  be  interested  in  a  religion  which 
was  based  upon  Jewish  Messianism,  and  required  cir- 
cumcision as  a  condition  of  admission  to  its  communion. 
It  was  only  a  Jew,  then,  of  intellectual  greatness,  breadth, 
and  culture  enough  to  enable  him  to  overcome  the  preju- 
dices of  his  race,  and  of  spiritual  insight,  feeling,  and 
personal  power  adequate  to  the  great  emergency,  who 
could  set  the  gospel  free  from  the  fetters  in  which  it 
had  been  bound  by  a  provincial  Jewish  Christianity,  and 
give  it  a  philosophical  interpretation  and  dogmatic  ex- 
pression, which  should  make  it  in  his  exposition  of  it 
for  many  ages  the  religion  of  the  most  enlightened 
nations  of  the  world.  This  procedure  would  appear, 
indeed,  to  be  only  the  substitution  of  one  Jewish  inter- 
pretation for  another ;  but  it  would  mark  no  little  advance, 
for  it  would  be  the  substitution  of  a  cosmopolitan  Jewish 
interpretation  for  a  provincial  Jewish  one.  It  would  be 
too  much  to  expect  that  the  new  creation  should  have 
in  it  nothing  of  the  old  system.  Just  as  the  transformed 
Christianity  of  the  Reformation  was  not  free  from  some 
deposit  of  Romanism,  so  it  might  well  be  expected  that 
the  new -Christianity  of  the  gentile  period  would  not  be 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  153 

without  traits  which  would  betray  its  origin.  Neither 
was  final.  Both  were  transformations  waiting  to  be  them- 
selves transformed  in  the  course  of  the  endless  develop- 
ment of  the  eternal  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus. 

I. — OUT    OF    JUDAISM    INTO    CHRISTIANITY. 

Details  of  the  early  years  of  Paul's  life,  of  his  education, 
and  of  the  formative  influences  under  which  he  grew  up 
are  almost  entirely  wanting.  The  authority  of  Acts 
should  doubtless  be  accepted  for  Tarsus  in  Cilicia  as  his 
birthplace  notwithstanding  Jerome's  opinion  to  the  con- 
trary.* That  he  was  born  of  Hebrew  parents  and  edu- 
cated as  a  Jew  we  know  from  his  own  testimony.f  This 
training  in  a  Jewish  home  may  be  regarded  as  excluding 
any  considerable  influence  from  the  Grecian  literature  and 
philosophy  which  were  cultivated  in  no  small  degree  in 
Tarsus.J  The  opinion  that  he  was  especially  qualified  to 
be  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles  by  familiarity  with  Greek 
thought  is  not  as  well  sustained  by  indications  in  his 
writings  as  has  been  supposed.  The  address  at  Athens 
can  hardly  be  cited  for  the  quotation  from  Aratus,  since 
it  can  by  no  means  be  regarded  as  an  accurate  report ; 
and  the  quotation  from  Epimenides  in  the  Epistle  to 
Titus  cannot  be  taken  into  account  in  view  of  the  probable 
spuriousness  of  that  writing.  The  maxim  which  appears 
to  be  quoted  from  the  Thais  of  Menander:§  "  Evil  com- 
munications corrupt  good  manners,"  is  quoted  without 
regard  to  the  metre,  and  does  not  necessarily  imply  ac- 
quaintance with  the  works  of  this  poet,  since  it  was  very 
likely  a  current  proverb.  If  Paul  had  had  any  acquaint- 

*  Acts  ix.  n,  xxi.  39,  xxii.  3  ;  Jerome,  Vir.  illust.,  i.  172. 

f  2  Cor.  xi.  22  ;  Phil.  iii.  5.  \  Strabo,  xiv.  4. 

§  i  Cor.  xv.  33. 


154       THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ance  with  Greek  literature  and  philosophy,  it  is  very  im- 
probable that,  so  much  given  to  quoting  as  he  was,  he 
would  not  have  betrayed  it  by  occasional  reference  and 
illustration.  His  testimony  already  referred  to  proves  him 
to  have  been  no  Hellenist',  but  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews. 
He  wrote  Greek  with  difficulty,*  and  his  tolerable  ac- 
quaintance with  the  language  appears  rather  to  have  been 
derived  from  intercourse  with  Greeks  than  from  literature 
or  the  grammarians,  since  his  style  shows  some  striking 
Hebraisms  apart  from  many  minor  offences  of  the  kind. 

Since  acquaintance  with  the  Old-Testament  Scriptures 
was  an  important  part  of  a  Jewish  education,  we  are  not 
surprised  to  find  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  evidences  of  great 
familiarity  with  these  writings.  As  the  Jews  of  the  New- 
Testament  times,  however,  spoke  the  Aramaic  dialect, 
and  could  not  readily  use  the  Old  Testament  in  the  origi- 
nal text,  we  find  that  Paul  in  common  with  the  writers  of 
the  Gospels  and  Josephus  made  the  greater  part  of  his 
citations  from  the  Septuagint  translation,  which  he  some- 
times followed  where  it  was  incorrect,  and  again  improved 
by  an  independent  rendering.f  His  citations  show  a 
wide  acquaintance  with  the  historical,  prophetic,  and 
poetic  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  with  known  and 
unknown  apocryphal  writings.^  In  particular  does  he 
appear  to  have  made  a  liberal  use  of  the  book  of  Wisdom, 
in  which  occur  the  teachings  that  death  came  into  the 
world  on  account  of  sin,  and  that  the  righteous  Israelites 
shall  judge  the  heathen  in  the  day  of  the  Messiah, §  to- 

*Gal.  vi.  ii. 

f  2  Cor.  iv.  13  ;   i  Cor.  xiv.  21  ;  Gal.  iii.  n  ;  Rom.  ix.  17. 
\  See  Meyer  on  i  Cor.  ii.   g  (Commentar,  v.  p.  63)  and  Rtickert  and 
Ewald  on  i  Cor.  ix.  10. 

§  Wisdom,  ii.  24,  iii.  8,  v.  17,  xv.  7. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  15$ 

gether  with  other  doctrines  and  some  illustrations  which 
appear  in  his  writings.  The  student  who  passes  from  the 
study  of  the  rabbinical  literature  to  that  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  not  only  finds  sayings  which  remind  him  of  the 
apothegms  in  which  that  literature  abounds,  but  often 
recognizes  in  the, apostle's  treatment  of  the  Old-Testa- 
ment Scriptures  the  rabbinical  point  of  view  and  exegeti- 
cal  artifices.  These  traits  do  not  appear  in  his  pages  as  if 
sought  with  labor,  but  rather  as  the  result  of  early  im- 
pressions and  fixed  modes  of  thought,  as  the  natural 
expression,  in  fact,  of  one  "  to  the  manner  born."  The 
strange  notion  that  the  women  ought  to  have  their  heads 
covered  in  the  Christian  assemblies  "  on  account  of  the 
angels  "  *  must  be  referred  to  a  Jewish  origin,  whether  we 
regard  it  as  a  reminiscence  of  the  Jewish  idea  that  angels 
were  present  in  the  worshipping  assemblies,t  or  trace  it 
to  the  narrative  in  the  book  of  Enoch  concerning  the 
sin  of  the  angels  with  the  daughters  of  men.J  In  saying 
that  Isaac  was  "  persecuted  "  by  Ishmael  he  does  not  fol- 
low the  account  in  Genesis  but  a  tradition  recorded  in 
the  book  of  Jubilees.  The  idea  that  "Satan  transforms 
himself  into  an  angel  of  light "  §  does  not  appear  to  have 
any  other  source  than  the  rabbinical  doctrine  that  tempta- 
tions of  the  Devil  came  to  men  in  the  forms  of  angels. 
Accordingly,  the  "  angel  "  who  is  reported  to  have  wrestled 
with  Jacob  was  supposed  to  be  Satan  in  disguise.  This 

*  i  Cor.  xi.  10,  did  rovS  dyyeXovS  ;  cf.  Targum  on  Gen.  vi.  2. 

f  See  the  Septuagint  version  of  Ps.  cxxxviii.  i  and  Tobit  xii.  12. 

\  Enoch  v.f. ;  cf.  Hilgenfeld,  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.,  1864, 
p.  183.  Meyer  adopts  the  former  view,  and  designates  the  latter  as  the 
reading  of  a  fleshly  meaning  into  the  passage  (fleischerne  Eindeutung),  asking 
with  amusing  naivete  whether  there  were  not  matrons  and  old  women  among 
those  who  were  warned  !  Commentar,  v.  p.  305. 

§  2  Cor.  xi.  14. 


I$          THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

thought  doubtless  lay  in  the  apostle's  mind,  and  was  as- 
sumed to  be  familiar  to  his  Jewish-Christian  readers.  The 
fancy  that  the  rock  from  which  Moses  is  reputed  miracu- 
lously to  have  obtained  water  was  no  natural  rock,  but  the 
Messiah  who  in  this  disguise  followed  the  children  of  Israel 
in  their  wanderings  was  a  current  rabbinical  tradition.* 

Not  only  was  Paul's  doctrine  that  the  Old-Testament 
Scripture  is  the  infallibly  inspired  word  of  God  that  of  the 
Jews  of  his  time,  but  his  interpretation  of  it  was  conformed 
to  the  current  rabbinical  method,  which  applied  to  the 
text  violent  exegetical  pressure  and  unlimited  allegorizing. 
Accordingly  he  finds  a  prophecy  of  Christ  in  the  promise 
to  Abraham,  because  it  was  made  to  the  "offspring"  of 
the  latter,  and  not  to  his  "  offsprings."  f  The  injunction 
in  the  law  not  to  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn 
he  allegorizes  and  applies  as  if  the  intention  of  the  writer 
had  been  to  teach  that  the  apostles  should  have  the  sup- 
port of  the  congregations  to  which  they  ministered.  It 
was  written,  he  maintains,  on  the  missionaries'  account, 
since  God  does  not  care  for  oxen.J  The  story  of  the  two 
wives  of  Abraham,  Sarah  and  Hagar,  was  "  written  alle- 
gorically  "  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  which  is  free  and  the 
mother  of  the  Christians  and  of  the  earthly  Jerusalem 
which  is  in  bondage  with  her  children  ;  and  he  establishes 
this  interpretation  by  a  quotation  from  Isaiah. §  Akin  to 
the  allegorical  interpretation  is  the  typological  which  finds 
in  an  historical  event  or  a  word  a  type  or  an  example 

*  i  Cor.  x.  4  ;  Onkelos  in  Num.  xxi.  18-20.  To  hold  with  Meyer  (Com- 
mentar,  v.  p.  265)  that  Paul  did  not  adopt  this  idea  from  the  rabbinical  lore, 
but  originated  it,  is  to  concede  at  least  the  influence  upon  his  mind  of  the 
rabbinical  method  of  treating  Scripture. 

f  Gal.  iii.  16  ;  cf.  Gen.  xiii.  15. 

\  i  Cor.  ix.  9.     A  more  humane  view  is  expressed  even  in  Jonah  iv.   n. 

§  Gal.  iv.  21. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  157 

which  was  written  as  an  "  ensample  "  for  a  situation  or  a 
person  in  some  future  time.  In  the  use  of  this  method 
Paul  almost  equals  Philo  in  ingenuity  and  invention.  The 
patriarchs,  Moses,  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  desert,  are 
regarded  as  types  of  the  Christian  community.  As,  if  the 
type  be  once  allowed,  the  caprice  of  the  interpreter  may 
apply  it  indefinitely,  so  Paul  finds  in  the  veil  upon  the 
face  of  Moses  two  types,  one  of  the  vanishing  glory  of  the 
old  Covenant,  and  one  of  the  cover  which  was  upon  the 
hearts  of  the  Jews  in  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  which  prevented  them  from  finding  in  it  the  Chris- 
tology  which  he  read  into  it.  *  A  theory  of  the  Scriptures 
which  makes  them  lend  themselves  so  readily  to  the  ends 
of  argumentation  has  its  perils,  not  the  least  of  which  is 
that  of  a  too  frequent  resort  to  it.  Accordingly,  every 
admirer  of  the  genius  of  Paul  must  regret  to  find  him  so 
often  prejudicing  his  cause  by  inept  appeals  to  passages 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  if  such  an  authority  were  alone 
adequate,  and  reason  futile. 

Paul  first  appears  in  Christian  story  in  Jerusalem  on 
the  occasion  of  the  stoning  of  Stephen. f  The  open  con- 
fession of  Jesus  and  the  bold  denunciation  of  the  Jews  as 
murderers  by  this  Hellenistic  Jewish  Christian  seem  tohave 
excited  the  indignation  of  Paul,  then  "  a  young  man,"  and 
full  of  zeal  for  the  law  and  the  traditions  of  his  nation,  and 
he  appears  to  have  been  thought  to  be  a  suitable  agent  of 
further  persecution  of  the  hated  sect.  Having  set  out  for 
Damascus  on  his  cruel  mission,  he  reached  that  city  a 
changed  man  by  reason  of  an  experience  which  was  second 
only  to  the  mission  of  Jesus  himself  in  importance  for  the 
cause  of  Christianity.  There  is  no  record  of  the  details 
of  this  event  which  can  lay  claim  to  strictly  historical 

*  2  Cor.  iii.  13  ff.  f  Acts  vii.  58. 


158        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

credibility,  since  the  accounts  of  it  in  Acts  do  not  agree 
among  themselves,  and  are  not  at  first  hand.*  From 
Paul's  references  to  it  in  his  Epistles  f  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  attached  great  importance  to  any  external  circum- 
stances which  may  have  accompanied  it.  He  declares  here 
that  he  had  seen  Jesus  the  Lord,  and  that  it  had  pleased 
God  to  reveal  His  Son  in  him.  \  It  is  upon  this  experience, 
in  whatever  way  referred  to,  that  he  grounds  his  claims  to 
apostolical  rank  and  dignity.  Had  he  not  seen  Jesus  as 
well  as  the  other  apostles  ?  If  the  Lord  appeared  to  them 
after  his  resurrection,  did  he  not  also  finally  appear  to 
him  as  "  to  one  born  out  of  due  time  "  ?  God,  indeed,  re- 
vealed His  Son  in  him  that  he  "  might  publish  the  glad 
tidings  of  him  among  the  gentiles."  Believing  himself 
called  to  the  Master's  work,  he  appears  to  connect  this 
call  with  a  mysterious  experience  which  he  does  not  defi- 
nitely locate  or  define.  We  can  only  conjecture  what  he 
means  by  the  declaration  that  he  had  seen  Jesus.  That  a 
bodily  manifestation  to  the  physical  vision  is  intended  is 
by  no  means  certain,  and  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be  prob- 
able. Even  in  the  accounts  in  Acts  it  is  not  recorded 
that  any  form  was  visible,  but  only  a  bright  light.  How- 
ever real,  objectively  real,  the  manifestation  may  have 
been  thought  by  him  to  be,  he  cannot  have  regarded  the 
experience  as  the  seeing  of  a  bodily  personality,  for  every 
materialistic  construction  of  the  event  is  excluded  by  the 
words  :  "  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me,"  which  may  be  cited  as 
his  own  interpretation  of  it.  Of  similar  import  are  the 
words  concerning  the  light  which  God  had  commanded  to 
shine  in  his  heart  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 

*  Chapp.  ix.  xxii.  xxvi.  f  i  Cor.  ix.  i,  xv.  8  ;  Gal.  i.  13-16. 

\  ovx*  "lyGotv    roy  xvpiov  iopana;    <nqjQj?  ud^oi; 
vlov  avrov  ev 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  1 59 

glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Christ.*  In  accord  with  this 
view  is  his  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  resurrection-body 
made  in  the  likeness  of  the  glorious  body  of  Christ, 
since  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.f 
That  he  conceived  of  such  a  heavenly  body  as  visible  to 
eyes  of  flesh  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

Other  experiences  of  Paul  recorded  by  himself  throw 
light  upon  the  one  in  question,  and  tend  to  confirm  the 
opinion  that  this  "  heavenly  vision  "  was  an  inward  experi- 
ence. With  an  apology  for  an  apparent  boasting  he 
writes  in  detail  of  "  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord  " 
which  he  had  had,  and  which  appear  to  relate  to  realities 
conceived  by  him  to  be  no  less  vivid  and  objective  than 
that  experienced  at  his  conversion.  "  Whether  in  the 
body  or  out  of  the  body,"  he  knows  not,  he  was  "  caught 
up  into  the  third  heaven,  into  paradise,"  and  "heard 
unspeakable  words."  \  Likewise  the  journey  to  Jerusalem 
undertaken  in  order  to  confer  with  the  original  apostles 
was  made  in  accordance  with  a  "  revelation,"  §  and  it  is 
recorded  in  Acts  that  he  had  a  vision  which  determined 
him  to  go  to  Macedonia,  "  concluding  that  the  Lord  had 
called  him  to  publish  the  glad  tidings  to  them."  |  These 
facts  appear  to  indicate  that  Paul  had  a  constitutional 
tendency  to  visions,  or  at  least  that  they  were  the  form 
which  the  apprehension  of  certain  truths  and  the  resolv- 
ing of  certain  perplexities  assumed  in  his  consciousness. 
One  can  scarcely  suppose  that  a  man  of  his  intellectual 
character  could  have  taken  so  important  a  step  as  the 
going  to  Jerusalem  to  confer  with  the  Jewish-Christian 
apostles  or  the  mission  to  Macedonia  without  careful 

*  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  f  I  Cor.  xv.  44,  48  ;  Phil.  iii.  21. 

\  2  Cor.  xii.  1-6.  §  «ar'  OLitoKoXv ipiv,  Gal.  ii.  2. 

|  Chap.  xvi.  9. 


l6o        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

deliberation,  or  even  that  paradise  and  the  "  unspeakable 
words"  heard  in  the  vision  of  the  third  heaven  had  not 
occupied  his  thoughts.  However  strongly  dogmatic  con- 
siderations may  predispose  the  student  to  seek  an  explana- 
tion of  these  visions  by  the  hypothesis  of  supernatural 
intervention,  he  must  concede  that  the  presumption  is 
in  favor  of  their  production  by  natural  causes,  and  that 
unless  these  can  be  shown  to  be  inadequate,  resort  to  that 
hypothesis  is  unwarrantable.  Now  it  is  evident  that  our 
knowledge  of  the  matter  is  so  meagre  that  a  dogmatic 
conclusion  regarding  it  must  be  altogether  preposterous 
and  irrational.  We  can  do  nothing,  then,  but  inquire  into 
the  psychological  antecedents  of  these  phenomena,  and  in 
particular  of  the  event  usually  called  the  conversion  of 
Paul,  but  designated  by  himself  as  the  revelation  of  Christ 
in  him.  The  intimate  connection  of  the  subject  with 
Paul's  relation  to  Christianity  requires  its  consideration 
before  we  proceed  to  a  study  of  his  explicit  teachings. 

Psychological  antecedents  of  this  conversion  of  Paul 
from  Judaism  to  Christianity  there  must  be  supposed  to 
have  been,  unless  in  a  manner  most  unscientific  and  most 
unpauline  his  faith  in  Jesus  be  regarded  as  produced 
without  antecedent  reflection,  reason,  and  consideration 
of  its  grounds,  but  by  the  subjection  of  his  mind  to  an 
external  power.  It  is  true  that  Paul  says  it  pleased  God 
to  reveal  His  Son  in  him.  But  this  omission  to  mention 
secondary  causes,  which  was  so  natural  to  a  Jew,  should 
not  influence  our  analysis.  Among  the  most  obvious 
antecedents  of  the  change  in  question  must  certainly  have 
been  some  knowledge  of  the  point  of  view,  opinions,  and 
grounds  of  belief  in  Jesus,  which  were  current  among  the 
Christians  whom  he  was  persecuting,  since  he  can  hardly 
be  supposed  not  to  have  heard  their  defence.  He  must 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  l6l 

have  known  that  they  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  expected 
Messiah,  and  that  although  he  had  been  ignominiously 
put  to  death,  he  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and  was 
expected  to  come  in  glory  and  establish  his  kingdom. 
Doubtless  rumors  of  manifestations  of  the  resurrected 
Jesus  to  Peter,  to  James,  to  the  five  hundred,  had  reached 
his  ears;  and  although  as  a  Jew  he  may  very  likely  have 
scoffed  at  the  idea  of  a  crucified  Messiah  and  at  the 
attempts  to  prove  from  the  Old  Testament  that  the 
prophets  had  foretold  such  a  Messiah,  and  have  rejected 
as  a  dream  or  a  fraud  the  story  of  the  resurrection,  yet  he 
could  not  escape  from  these  ideas,  could  not  but  reflect 
upon  them,  could  not  but  recognize  their  power  when  he 
saw  men  ready  to  die  for  them.  It  is  very  probable  also  that 
in  his  zeal  for  the  law  and  the  traditions  of  Judaism,  the 
impetuous  spirit  of  Paul  had  undertaken  more  than  he 
could  well  carry  out,  and  that  although  in  his  fury  he  may 
have  "breathed  out  threatenings  and  slaughter,"  his  sen- 
sitive nature  revolted  at  the  distress  and  agony  which  his 
cruelty  produced.  Nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  a 
man  of  his  conscientiousness  and  his  tenderness  of  heart 
should  have  been  tormented  with  doubts  as  to  the  right- 
ness  of  his  dreadful  work,  doubts  as  to  whether  he  might 
not  be  contending  against  God.  To  such  a  man  doubts 
of  this  kind  could  not  but  give  rise  to  the  most  earnest 
and  most  torturing  reflections.  To  reflect,  to  hesitate  in 
the  midst  of  his  abominable  inquisitions,  or  perhaps  when 
they  were  about  to  be  renewed,  was  to  give  place  in  his 
mind  to  all  that  he  had  learned  of  Jesus  from  the  lips  of 
his  victims,  to  recollections  of  their  heroism  and  faith,  to 
all  that  they  had  adduced  as  reasons  for  their  belief  from 
the  Scriptures,  to  relate  these  things  with  his  convictions, 
his  Messianic  hopes,  his  doctrine  of  the  divine  foresight 


1 62        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  the  sovereignty  of  the  law,  of  righteousness,  of  atone- 
ment, and  by  means  of  his  great  logical  power,  insight, 
and  religious  feeling,  to  struggle  with  the  mighty  prob- 
lem until  it  should  be  solved. 

The  cross  and  the  resurrection  were  the  central  difficul- 
ties of  the  problem  as  it  lay  in  the  mind  of  Paul.  To  him, 
as  a  Jew,  the  cross  was  a  "  stumbling-block."  How  could 
that  one  be  the  Messiah  who  instead  of  winning  a  crown 
had  in  the  judgment  of  his  nation  earned  the  cross?  We 
may  conceive  this  difficulty  to  have  been  overcome  in  his 
thought  by  reminiscences  of  passages  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, particularly  from  the  fifty-third  of  Isaiah,  which 
he  had  perhaps  heard  adduced  by  the  Christians,  and  by 
the  presence  of  another  problem  in  his  mind,  that  of  the 
salvation  of  his  nation,  or  their  attainment  of  a  righteous- 
ness worthy  of  the  Messianic  time.  How  far  they  were 
from  this  achievement!  Could  the  law  be  in  fact  fulfilled? 
How  should  the  warfare  of  the  forces  of  good  and  evil  in 
himself  and  others  ever  be  decided  in  the  interest  of  right- 
eousness? Whence  should  come  deliverance  from  "  the 
body  of  this  death  "  ?  How  should  this  dread  dualism  be 
solved  ?  To  conceive  of  the  mission  of  the  Messiah  as 
the  bringing  in  of  righteousness,  which  was  an  idea  by  no 
means  strange  to  Jewish  thought,  and  of  his  death  as  the 
abolition  of  that  dualism  by  removing  the  curse  of  the 
law — an  idea  which  was  also  contained  in  the  Jewish  doc- 
trine of  atonement — this  was  to  solve  the  chief  problem, 
that  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  to  take  away  the  offence 
of  the  cross.  But  if  Jesus  had  died  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  decree  to  accomplish  this  great  work  for  his 
nation,  if  in  this  sense  he  were  indeed  the  Messiah,  then 
to  the  logic  of  Paul  there  could  be  no  objection  urged 
against  the  declaration  of  the  Christians  that  the  crucified 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  163 

had  risen  from  the  dead.  For  though  God  might  suffer 
him  to  be  sacrificed  and  to  "  die  for  the  nation,"  He  could 
not  abandon  him  to  sheol.  Raised  he  must  be,  and  exalted 
to  heaven,  a  being  of  light  clothed  with  a  "  glorious 
body."  *  Might  not  the  testimony  of  the  Christian 
martyrs  and  the  dying  vision  of  Stephen  then  represent  a 
•divine  reality,  since  they  confirmed  so  well  the  logical 
solution  of  the  great  problem  of  righteousness  and  the 
Messiahship?  That  Paul  may  have  reasoned  in  some 
such  way  as  this  is  more  than  probable  from  what  we 
know  of  his  intellectual  character;  and  that  such  reason- 
ing reenforced  by  the  testimony,  the  devotion,  and  the 
heroism  of  the  persecuted  disciples  of  Jesus  should  result 
in  his  conviction  that  their  cause  was  right,  and  that  in 
opposing  it  he  was  contending  against  God,  may  be  re- 
garded as  scarcely  open  to  question.  If,  then,  we  are  not 
warranted  by  the  analogy  of  experience  in  believing  that 
Paul's  transition  from  Judaism  to  Christianity  was  by  a 
leap  or  by  an  external  propulsion  ;  if  we  are  to  suppose 
that  his  conversion  was  a  product  of  which  the  factors 
were  his  antecedent  beliefs  as  a  Jew,  a  process  of  reason- 
ing upon  certain  data,  and  the  obtrusive  fact  of  the  life 
of  Jesus,  together  with  the  testimony  of  his  disciples ;  if 
we  cannot,  without  disregarding  the  presumptions  fur- 
nished by  history  and  the  nature  of  the  human  mind, 
assume  that  such  an  intelligence  as  his  could  devote  itself 
with  enthusiastic  ardor  to  a  cause  without  rational  con- 
viction of  its  truth  ;  if  in  a  word  this  great  transformation 
was  not  effected  by  magic — then  must  we  maintain  that 
the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  him  and  his  seeing 
of  Jesus  were  a  spiritual  manifestation  and  vision  which 
had  definite  and  necessary  psychological  antecedents. 

e,  86fyS,  Phil,  iii.,  21. 


164       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

His  own  statements  regarding  the  event  rather  imply  than 
exclude  these  antecedents ;  while  the  unhistorical  accounts 
of  it  in  Acts  would  naturally  find  no  place  for  them.* 

2. — THE     POINT     OF    DEPARTURE-! 

The  Pauline  gospel  can  be  understood  only  when  it  is 
regarded  as  an  independent  system  of  thought,  and  not  as 
a  product  of  reflection  on  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Records 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  Paul  did  not  possess,  and  although  he 
occasionally  shows  points  of  contact  with  the  tradition  of 
his  teaching,  only  two  events  of  his  earthly  career  appear 
to  have  impressed  him  deeply — the  crucifixion  and  the 
resurrection.  To  the  original  apostles,  who  cherished  the 

*  The  conversion  of  Paul  does  not  appear  inexplicable  from  a  psycho- 
logical point  of  view,  when  it  is  considered  that  Judaism  contains  theological 
ideas  which  to  a  logical  mind  facilitated  the  transition  to  Christianity.  From 
Isaiah  liii.  the  doctrine  had  been  derived  that  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous 
have  an  atoning  efficacy  to  compensate  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  and 
that  Paul  combined  this  doctrine  with  the  death  of  Jesus  there  can  be  little 
doubt.  The  righteousness  of  the  nation  which  was  postulated  by  Pharisee- 
ism  as  a  condition  of  the  Messianic  time,  conceived  to  be  near  at  hand,  might 
well  be  supposed  to  be  effected  by  a  great  atonement,  if  in  view  of  the  spir- 
itual condition  of  the  people  there  was  any  hope  of  its  realization.  Again, 
by  means  of  the  popular  allegorical  exegesis,  with  which  Paul  shows  famili- 
arity, it  was  easy  to  interpret  many  passages  of  the  prophets  and  psalms  as 
fulfilled  in  the  passion  of  Jesus ;  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  could  not  be 
obnoxious  to  a  Pharisee,  and  the  idea  of  a  crucified  and  resurrected  Messiah 
who  should  bring  to  the  world  a  new  righteousness  might  not  only  be  easily 
reached  by  Paul  from  Jewish  premises,  but  was  actually  held  by  him  on 
scriptural  grounds  ( I  Cor.  xv.  3),  as  he  interpreted  Scripture. 

f  The  following  study  of  the  Pauline  apprehension  of  the  gospel  is  based 
upon  Romans,  Galatians,  I  and  2  Corinthians,  I  Thessalonians,  and  Philip- 
pians.  The  genuineness  of  no  one  of  these  is  open  to  serious  doubt, 
although  Baur  contested  that  of  i  Thessalonians  and  Philippians.  The 
subject  cannot  be  discussed  here,  and  no  attempt  is  made  to  present  a  com- 
plete view  of  the  Pauline  theology. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION,  1 65 

tradition  of  the  historical  Christ,  and  expected  him  to 
come  again  in  person  to  complete  that  Messianic  work 
which  had  been  interrupted  by  his  death,*  Jesus  was  the 
Jewish  Messiah.  A  crucified  Messiah  was,  indeed,  to 
them  a  stumbling-block,  but  they  got  over  it  by  connecting 
the  Messiahship  in  a  modified  form  with  the  more  glorious 
second  manifestation  or  Parousia.  But  Paul  construed 
the  Messiahship  in  an  entirely  different  way,  if,  indeed,  he 
may  not  be  said  to  have  abandoned  it  altogether.  To  him 
as  a  Jew  the  cross  had,  indeed,  been  a  stumbling-block,  as 
it  remained  to  other  Jews,  but  to  him  as  a  Christian  it 
was  no  longer  so,  for  he  looked  upon  it  as  a  symbol  of 
the  vanishing  of  the  old  dispensation  and  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  order  of  religious  administration.  In  the 
death  of  Jesus  he  saw  the  abolition  of  the  law  and  the 
dethroning  of  Judaism  from  its  seat  of  spiritual  empire. 
He  who  on  the  cross  appeared  to  his  panic-stricken  follow- 
ers as  the  perishing  Jewish  Messiah  was  to  Paul  a  universal 
Messiah  dying  to  Judaism  that  he  might  live  to  mankind. 
To  him  Jesus  had  "  died  for  all,  that  they  who  live  should 
no  longer  live  to  themselves  but  to  him  who  died  for  their 
sakes  and  rose  again. "f  No  longer  now  does  he  know 
Christ  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  that  is,  as  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  for  in  his  thought  Jesus  on  the  cross  died  to  all 
the  national,  fleshly,  sensuous  limitations  which  in  Judaism 
attached  to  the  Messiah,  and  became  the  representative 
of  a  world-principle  of  life  and  "a  quickening  spirit." 

Paul  sets  forth  the  point  of  view  from  which  he  regarded 
the  gospel  and  the  significance  of  the  mission  of  Jesus, 
and  gives  undoubtedly  at  the  same  time  a  section  of  his 
spiritual  biography,  in  the  following  words  :  "  Forthe  lawof 
the  Spirit  of  life  set  me  free  in  Christ  Jesus  from  the  law 

*Actsiii.  19  ff.  f  2  Cor.  v.  15,  16. 


1 66       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  sin  and  death.  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  had  done  who  on  ac- 
count of  sin  sent  His  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh,  and  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  on  sin  in  the 
flesh  ;  so  that  what  is  required  by  the  law  might  be  ac- 
complished in  us  who  walk  not  according  to  the  flesh,  but 
according  to  the  Spirit."  *  Thus  in  Jesus  Christ  he  sees 
a  governing  principle  of  the  Spirit  of  God  which  leads  to 
everlasting  life.  Christ  himself  is  the  Spirit,  f  and  the 
consciousness  of  the  Christian  is  in  its  essential  nature  the 
consciousness  of  possessing  the  Spirit  of  God  or  of  Christ. 
The  Christian  believer  has  "  received  the  Spirit."  \  His 
consciousness  is  essentially  spiritual,  and  is  not  one  of 
bondage,  but  of  liberty,  is  in  fact  one  of  sonship  ;  being^ 
led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  "  he  is  a  son  of  God.  §  The 
Spirit  even  "  beareth  witness  "  with  his  spirit  that  he  is  a 
child  of  God.  [  The  relation  of  this  idea  that  in  the  mis- 
sion of  Jesus  there  came  into  the  world  a  new  and  absolute 
principle  of  spiritual  life  to  Paul's  general  view  of  the  world 
and  his  philosophy  of  salvation  is  apparent.  It  accords 
with  the  doctrine  that  the  first  man,  Adam,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  second  man,  Christ,  and  to  the  Christian 
believer,  was  merely  "  a  living  soul "  ;  that  in  the  order  of 
things  that  is  first  which  is  natural  or  animal,  and  after- 
wards the  spiritual ;  that  sin  reigned  from  Adam  to- 
Christ ;  and  that  the  natural  man  cannot  possibly  fulfil 
the  spiritual  law  for  want  of  the  power  to  break  the  force 
of  the  flesh. 

That  this  point  of  view  was  essentially  Jewish  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  dominated  by  the  idea  of  the  law 

*  Rom.  viii.  2-5.  f  2  Cor.  iii.  17. 

\  Gal.  iii.  2,  rcvsvfta.  §  Rom.  viii.  14. 

|  Rom.  viii.  16. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  l6/ 

and  finds  its  illustrations  only  in  Jewish  mythology  or 
history.  It  was,  as  we  have  seen,  entertained  in  a  rudi- 
mentary form  and  without  philosophical  development  in 
the  Jewish-Christian  apostolical  circles,  so  far  as  the  com- 
munication of  the  Spirit  to  men  upon  belief  and  baptism 
is  concerned.  Here  its  Old-Testament  source  is  indicated 
by  an  appeal  to  a  prophecy  of  Joel.  Paul  may  very  likely 
have  worked  out  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  independently, 
influenced  perhaps  by  the  book  of  Wisdom,  with  which, 
as  has  been  previously  remarked,  he  appears  to  have  been 
acquainted.  Here  the  doctrine  is  taught  that  Wisdom 
or  the  Holy  Spirit  descends  into  the  souls  of  men  commun- 
icating knowledge  and  virtue  and  making  them  friends 
of  God  and  prophets.*  In  receiving  this  doctrine  into 
his  system  Paul  identifies  Jesus  with  the  idea  of  Wisdom 
and  the  Spirit  from  above,  and  makes  him  the  source  of 
the  divine  power  which  he  believed  to  be  communicated 
to  the  Christians.  We  should,  however,  omit  a  very  im- 
portant factor  in  this  conception  if  we  did  not  take  into 
account  Paul's  great  religious  nature,  his  sense  of  sin  and 
of  its  power  in  human  life,  his  high  ideal  of  righteousness, 
and  that  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  him  by  which  he 
saw  at  the  moment  of  his  transformation  a  way  of  escape 
from  his  bondage  by  faith  and  a  dying  to  the  law.  How 
fundamental  and  important  was  the  office  of  the  Spirit  in 
Paul's  philosophy  of  the  gospel  appears  in  his  repeated 
reference  to  its  operations.  Not  only  does  he  recognize 
this  power  in  such  subordinate  manifestations  as  the 
speaking  with  tongues,  or  the  ecstatic  expression  of 
feeling,  and  call  those  who  were  so  affected  among  the 
Corinthians,  spiritual  men  or  "  pneumatics,"  f  but  to  him 

*  Wisdom,  Chapp.  vii.  viii.  ix. 
oS,  i  Cor.  xiv.  37. 


1 68        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  Spirit  is  the  supernatural  divine  power  of  life  which, 
transcendent  before  Christ,  has  through  him  become  im- 
manent in  the  souls  of  believers,  and  produces  in  them 
illumination,  knowledge  of  spiritual  things,  and  ability  to 
overcome  the  weakness  of  the  flesh.*  "  The  things  which 
eye  hath  not  seen,  and  ear  hath  not  heard,"  etc.,  "  God 
has  revealed  to  us  by  His  Spirit."  All  knowledge  of  di- 
vine things  is  attained  by  this  instrumentality.  "  We  did 
not  receive  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  of  God, 
that  we  might  know  the  things  that  have  been  given  us 
by  the  grace  of  God."  f  This  spirit  is  represented  as  tak- 
ing up  its  abode  in  believers,  for  to  the  Corinthians  Paul 
says  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  God's  temple,  and  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwellefh  in  you  ? "  \  Without  this 
divine  power  no  one  is  even  able  to  make  a  confession  of 
Jesus,  for  "  No  one  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Spirit."  §  It  is  "  with  the  Holy  Spirit  "  that  the 
second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  written.]  The  Spirit 
is  not  conceived  by  Paul  as  a  third  personality  different 
from  God  and  Christ,  but  rather  as  one  with  both,  so  that 
the  distinction  appears  to  vanish  in  his  thought,  and  God's 
Spirit,  Christ's  Spirit,  and  Christ  are  different  terms  for 
the  same  conception. ^f  In  one  passage  "  the  Lord,"  that 
is,  Christ,  is  distinctly  declared  to  be  "  the  Spirit."  ** 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  many  passages  in  Paul's 
writings  in  which  his  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  finds  expres- 

*  So  prominent  a  part  does  Paul  assign  to  this  divine  power  in  believers 
that  it  has  been  contended  that  he  did  not  recognize  a  7tvsvfj.a  as  naturally 
belonging  to  man.  See  Holsten,  Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  und  des 
Petrus,  1868,  pp.  384  ff,  and  per  contra  Pfleiderer,  Zeitsch.  fur  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.  1871,  pp.  161  ff. 

f  2  Cor.  ii.  10,  n.  \  i  Cor.  iii.  16. 

§  i  Cor.  xii.  3.  |  2  Cor.  iii.  3. 

^[  Rom.  viii.  9-11.  **  2  Cor.  iii.  17. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  169 

sion.  As  an  absolute  principle  of  the  Christian  life  it  was 
conceived  as  not  only  opposed  to  the  flesh  in  the  indi- 
vidual and  an  immanent  source  of  spiritual  quickening, 
but  as  marking  the  fundamental  distinction  between  the 
temporal  and  fleshly  "  elements  "  of  Judaism  and  the  new, 
eternal  Christian  dispensation.  The  vanishing  of  Juda- 
ism, the  death  of  Jesus  to  the  law  and  to  its  fleshly 
Messiahship,  the  abolition  of  the  law  forever  on  the  cross, 
the  necessity  that  all  men  should  also  die  to  it,  be  bap- 
tized into  the  Spirit,  and  rise  into  newness  of  life — this  was 
Paul's  point  of  departure.  The  veil  upon  the  face  of 
Moses  was  a  symbol  that  the  Israelites  did  not  behold 
"the  end  of  that  which  was  to  be  done  away."*  But 
whenever  their  heart  turneth  to  the  Lord,  or  Christ,  the 
veil  is  taken  away ;  and  as  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit,  and 
where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  there  is  liberty,  the  un* 
veiled  beholders  of  his  glory  "  are  changed  into  the  same 
image  from  glory  to  glory,  as  by  the  Lord,  the  Spirit."  f 
For  them  whatever  was  limiting  and  encumbering  in  Jewish 
legalism,  whatever  was  severe  and  difficult  in  the  attain- 
ment of  Jewish  righteousness,  whatever  was  fleshly  and 
transient  in  Jewish  Messianism — all  this  was  done  away  in 
the  presence  of  the  Spirit,  the  absolute  principle  of  life  and 
liberty.  It  does  not  belong  to  an  historical  study  to 
investigate  the  validity  of  this  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit,  and  determine  whether  it  represents  an  objective 
reality,  or  is  the  expression  of  a  subjective  experience 
which  is  capable  of  a  psychological  explanation.  It  should 
be  remarked,  however,  that  it  indicates  a  wide  departure 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  original  Church  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  apostles.  As  to  Judaism  the  Spirit  was 
transcendent,  and  came  into  relation  with  men  only  occa- 

*  2  Cor.  iii.  13.  f  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  13. 


1 70       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

sionally,  when  it  inspired  the  prophets,  so  to  the  Jewish- 
Christian  believers  it  was  manifested  in  certain  signs  on 
occasion  of  baptism  or  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the 
apostles.  They  knew  nothing  of  the  speculative  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit  as  an  absolute  principle  of  the  Christian  life 
in  which  was  dissolved  into  types  and  "  ensamples  "  all 
that  they  reverenced  in  their  history  and  traditions,  before 
which  the  majesty  of  the  old  law  must  bow,  and  by  whose 
authority  the  good  old  way  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
fathers  and  the  prophets  was  declared  impossible.  More 
than  a  departure  from  the  original  gospel  of  Jesus  is  this 
Pauline  speculative  doctrine ;  it  is  a  radical  transforma- 
tion of  it.  Jesus  declared  that  he  came  not  to  destroy 
the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it ;  and  while  he  doubtless  expected 
that  it  would  be  outgrown  so  far  as  it  was  narrow  and  un- 
spiritual,  he  said  nothing  of  a  metaphysical  abolition  of  it 
by  his  death.  In  his  teaching  the  religious  life  was  not 
represented  as  being  the  result  of  a  mystical  indwelling 
or  communication  of  the  Spirit,  but  as  being  attained  by 
repentance  and  obedience.  His  great  precepts  were  to 
love  God  and  men  and  to  strive  for  righteousness  and  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  The  Spirit  as  a  supernatural  influ- 
ence in  the  religious  life  was  foreign  to  his  thought.  On 
the  contrary,  he  made  his  appeal  to  the  natural  intuitions 
and  sentiments  of  men,  and  on  these  as  capable  and 
efficient  he  depended  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
spiritual  ends  which  he  had  in  view.  To  his  great  and 
lucid  intelligence  this  Pauline  speculative  point  of  view 
would  have  been  impossible,  and  to  his  feelings  the  Pauline 
"  ecstatic  speaking  with  tongues "  and  the  idea  of  the 
Spirit  making  "  intercession  with  groanings  that  cannot  be 
uttered,"  would  have  been  only  less  offensive  than  fre- 
quent scenes  of  the  modern  revival,  where  the  cross  is 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  I /I 

represented  as  a  symbol  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice,  and  multi- 
tudes gather  shaken  with  emotion  and  driven  to  the  place 
by  the  instinct  of  personal  safety. 

3. — SIN    AND    THE    FLESH. 

In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  there  is  only  infrequent  men- 
tion of  sin  in  the  concrete,  and  no  doctrine  of  it  in  the 
abstract.  But  in  the  doctrinal  system  of  Paul  it  occupies 
a  very  prominent  position,  and  casts  an  ominous  shadow 
upon  human  nature  and  human  life  as  regarded  from  his 
point  of  view.  His  doctrine  of  sin  shows  the  influence 
upon  his  thought  of  the  Jewish  theology  in  which  he  was 
reared,  and  may  be  regarded,  since  Jesus  taught  nothing 
respecting  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin,  as  a  modification 
of  the  gospel  through  rabbinical  speculation.  The  Jewish 
theology  furnished  both  a  natural  and  an  historical  ex- 
planation of  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world.  The 
former,  which  may  be  regarded  as  inclusive  of  the  latter, 
proceeded  upon  the  assumption  of  an  impulse  to  evil 
(yeser  ha-ra)  residing  in  the  human  body  and  constantly 
striving  against  the  inclination  to  good  (yeser  ha-tob) 
which  existed  in  the  soul.  The  evil  impulse  was  so  strong 
as  generally  to  prevail,  and  its  first  historical  success  was 
gained  in  Eve  and  Adam  through  their  temptation  by 
Satan  or  "  the  old  serpent."*  There  resulted  from  the 
fall  of  Adam  a  troop  of  natural  evils,  particularly  physical 
death,  which  was  ordained  as  a  punishment,  and  such  a 
moral  deterioration  that  the  will  of  man  became  subject 
to  the  control  of  the  fleshly  impulses,  and  was  bent  to  the 
commission  not  only  of  sins  of  a  sensuous  nature,  but  also 

*  The  Jewish  theology  must  of  course  trace  the  origin  of  sin  to  God,  since 
He  created  man  with  fleshly  impulses — an  act  of  which  He  repented.  See 
Weber,  System  der  altsynag.  Theol.,  p.  214. 


I J2        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  spiritual  transgressions.  The  inclination  to  good  was 
so  weakened  that  it  was  unable  in  general  to  offer  a 
successful  resistance  to  the  lower  nature,  and  the  attain- 
ment of  righteousness  was  rendered  extremely  difficult  if 
not  impossible,  although  by  the  observance  of  the  law 
(Thora)  the  good  impulses  might  be  so  strengthened  as 
to  make  their  victory  possible.  But  such  cases  are  excep- 
tional, and  the  great  majority  of  men  are  subject  to  the 
sway  of  their  lower  nature.  Only  actual  transgressions 
were,  however,  regarded  as  sins,  and  no  guilt  attached  to 
a  man  because  of  the  natural  impulse  to  wrong-doing. 
Accordingly,  in  the  Jewish  theology  there  was  no  doctrine 
of  inherited  or  transmitted  sinfulness,  and  all  punishments 
were  thought  to  be  the  results  of  individual  offences. 
The  penalty  was  inflicted  rigorously  "  measure  for  meas- 
ure," and  "  No  death  without  sin "  was  an  established 
maxim.  The  death  of  children  was  charged  to  the  sins 
of  their  parents,  while  that  of  the  righteous  was  a  means 
of  salvation,  a  deliverance  out  of  the  present  evil  world. 

It  accords  with  the  philosophical  point  of  view  of  Paul 
that  he  deals  very  largely  with  sin  in  the  abstract.  He 
conceives  of  it  as  a  condition  and  a  power.  Jews  and 
Greeks  are  subject  to  it ;  it  has  come  into  the  world 
and  dwells  in  man,  working  all  manner  of  evil,  deceiving, 
slaying,  as  if  possessed  of  personality.*  He  draws  a  ter- 
rible picture  of  the  condition  of  the  heathen  world  under 
the  power  of  sin,  whom  "  God  has  given  over  in  the  lust 
of  their  hearts  to  impurity,"  and  sees  his  own  nation  sub- 
ject to  the  same  malign  influence.f  Experience  reveals 
the  deplorable  condition  of  the  individual  in  whose  mem- 
bers this  fatal  power  works,  mastering  the  inclination  to 
good  and  the  will  which  would  obey  the  law,  and  bring- 

*  Rom.  iii.  9,  v.  12,  vii.  9,  n,  17.  f  Rom.  i.  ii. 


THE   PA  ULINE    TRANSFORMA  T1ON.  \  73 

ing  him  into  a  bondage  against  which  he  vainly  strug- 
gles.* As  if  Scripture  could  make  more  certain  what 
observation  and  experience  have  established,  Paul  com- 
bines several  passages  from  the  Psalms  to  prove  the 
universality  of  sin,f  which  he  regards  as  a  "law"  of  the 
members,  a  recognized  principle  in  the  economy  of  God, 
who  "  delivered  up  all  to  disobedience,"  and  whose  re- 
vealed word  "  shut  up  all  under  sin."  J  Paul's  explana- 
tion of  this  power  of  sin  is  essentially  that  of  the  Jewish 
theologians.  He  finds  two  principal  causes  for  it — the 
transgression  of  Adam,  and  the  nature  of  man  as  u  flesh." 
With  regard  to  the  former  his  fundamental  proposition 
is  that  "  through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  through  sin  death,  and  thus  death  came  through  unto 
all  men,  because  all  sinned."  §  The  doctrine  of  this 
passage  and  its  connection  appears  to  be  that  through 
the  transgression  of  Adam  sin  came  into  the  world  as  a 
universal  power  to  which  all  men  were  to  such  a  degree 
subjected  that  they  became  personally  sinners;  and  that 
physical  death  came  into  the  world  through  sin,  and  that 
all  were  subjected  to  it  on  account  of  the  judgment 
pronounced  upon  Adam,  but  only  because  all  personally 
sinned.  Thus  the  dominion  of  death  extended  over  all 
men  not  only  because  of  Adam's  sin,  but  also  because  of 
individual  transgressions  whereby  the  universal  judgment 
of  death  was  made  effective  for  each.  The  mediate 
cause  of  death  is  the  sin  of  Adam,  its  immediate  cause 
the  sin  of  each  individual.  That  this  was  actually  the 
state  of  things  before  the  Mosaic  law  was  given  is  shown 

*  Rom.  vii.  7-25,  vi.  17.  f  Rom.  iii.  10-19. 

\  Rom.  vii.  23,  xi.  32  ;  Gal.  iii.  22. 

§  did  TTJS  dpaprtaS  o  BdvaroS e<p    w   TtavrzS  r 

Rom.  v.  12. 


OF 

^      oar 


174       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

by  the  words  :  "  For  all  the  time  before  the  law  sin  was 
in  the  world  ;  but  sin  is  not  set  to  one's  account  when 
there  is  no  law.  Yet  death  reigned  from  Adam  to 
Moses  even  over  those  who  had  not  sinned  in  the  manner 
in  which  Adam  transgressed  "  (i.  e.,  by  violating  a  posi- 
tive commandment).*  In  other  words,  in  the  case  of 
those  who  had  not  sinned  as  Adam  did,  the  actually 
existing  sin  was  punished  by  death  in  accordance  with 
the  maxim  that  they  who  sin  without  a  law  will  also 
perish  without  a  law  —  a  doctrine  which  was  fundamental 
in  the  Jewish  theology  .f  The  death  of  innocent  children 
was  doubtless  not  in  Paul's  mind,  but  the  Jewish  idea  of 
the  solidarity  of  the  family,  according  to  which  the  sin 
of  the  parents  is  visited  upon  the  children,  would  have 
furnished  him  with  a  solution  of  the  problem.  It  should 
be  observed  that  according  to  the  teaching  of  Paul  it  is 
not  sin  which  has  "  come  through"  to  all  men,  but  death, 
which  came  with  sin.  Hence  he  cannot  be  said  to  have 
taught  the  doctrine  that  the  death  of  all,  even  of  little 
children,  is  a  penalty  of  hereditary  sin  born  in  all,  or  im- 
mediately of  Adam's  sin.  The  dogma  of  original  sin  as 
taught  in  the  Church  cannot  legitimately  be  derived  from 
Paul's  writings.  He  regarded  sin  and  death,  indeed,  as 
having  become  great  powers  in  the  world  through  Adam  ; 
but  he  knew  of  no  guilt  which  was  not  through  individ- 
ual sinning,  and  his  proposition  concerning  death  as  a 
judgment  upon  sin  is  that  it  "came  through  unto  all  men 
because  all  sinned,"  that  is,  that  it  is  directly  due  to  per- 
sonal transgression,  indirectly  to  Adam's.J 


*  kiti  rta  ojuoiajjuan  rrfi  itapafidGeGos'Addi*,  Rom.  v.  13,  14. 
f  See  Rom.  ii.  12. 

$  That  Paul  regarded  Adam  as  naturally  mortal  appears  to  be  implied  in 
I  Cor.   xv.  47.       The  introduction  of  death  by  sin  can   then  only  be  ex- 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  1/5 

We  should  expect,  then,  that  Paul  would  have  a  doc- 
trine of  the  origin,  seat,  and  development  of  sin  in  the 
individual.  Such  a  doctrine  which  is  implied  in  his  teach- 
ing respecting  the  relation  of  Adam's  transgression  to  the 
human  race,  and  is  to  be  expected  from  him  by  reason  of 
his  education  in  the  Jewish  theology,  is  actually  contained 
in  his  conception  of  the  flesh.*  The  exact  determination 
of  the  meaning  of  this  term  in  his  thought  is  involved  in 
difficulty.  In  accord  with  the  Jewish  theology  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  recognized  in  human  nature  two  impulses 
corresponding  to  its  two  sides,  body  and  soul.  He  sees  a 
schism  in  man  arising  from  a  twofold  "  law  "  or  impulse, 
the  one  good,  the  other  bad.  The  good  impulse,  which 
dwells  in  the  "  inner  man,"  or  the  "  mind,"  f  is  in  sympathy 
with  the  law  of  God,  but  on  account  of  the  opposition  of 
the  "  other  law  in  the  members  "  £  has  not  the  power  to 
fulfil  it.  This  fleshly  impulse  is  represented  as  natural  to 
man,  but  as  not  resulting  in  sin  until  "  the  commandment 
came,"  for  "  without  the  law  sin  is  dead."  When  the 
commandment  is  known  the  latent  tendency  to  sin  springs 
into  activity  with  its  train  of  lusts  and  passions,  the  rent 
in  human  nature  is  disclosed,  the  conflict  of  opposing  im- 

plained  from  Paul's  point  of  view  by  supposing  that  Adam  might  have 
become  immortal  had  he  not  sinned  and  hence  been  expelled  from  the 
garden  and  so  prevented  from  eating  of  the  tree  of  life.  See  Gen.  iii.  22. 
The  dependence  of  the  whole  discussion, upon  Jewish  legend  and  speculation 
is  instructive.  The  Jewish  theologians  also  held  that  Adam  was  mortal  in 
the  sense  that  he  could  sin,  but  that  he  brought  death  upon  himself  and  his 
posterity  by  sinning.  Had  he  not  sinned  he  might,  like  Elijah,  have 
escaped  death.  Jewish  theology  also  attempted  to  solve  the  antinomy  which 
is  contained  in  the  two  propositions,  that  sin  and  guilt  are  not  hereditary, 
but  death,  their  penalty,  is,  since  the  whole  race  is  mortal  regardless  of 
moral  desert.  See  Weber,  System  der  altsynagog.  Theol.,  pp.  238-240. 

f  edao  avQpooxoS,  rov$. 


THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

pulses  begins,  the  peace  of  innocence  in  which  the  subject 
had  u  lived  "  is  broken,  and  he  has  the  bitter  foretaste  of 
death.  Sin  comes  to  life  and  he  dies.  Thence  his  better 
self  is  in  bondage  to  the  tyrannous  power  of  sin  ;  he  is 
"  fleshly,  a  slave  sold  to  sin,"  yet  at  the  same  time  he  dis- 
tinguishes between  his  real,  true  self  and  this  foreign  and 
hostile  power  which  rules  in  him,  that  is,  in  his  flesh,  so 
that  it  is  no  longer  he  that  transgresses  but  sin  which 
dwells  in  him.  The  "  inward  man  "  takes  delight  in  the 
law  of  God,  but  the  other  law  which  wars  against  the  law 
of  the  mind  (rov?)  brings  the  man  "  into  captivity  "  to  the 
law  of  sin  which  is  in  his  "  members."  *  These  expres- 
sions throw  some  light  upon  the  Pauline  conception  of 
the  flesh,  and  appear  to  show  that  he  saw  in  the  natural 
man  something  more  than  he  thought  this  term  to  cover. 
Since  there  is  the  "  inward  man,"  the  vov$,  which  contends 
against  the  outward  man,  or  the  flesh,  the  mind  striving  in 
opposition  to  the  sarkical  or  fleshly  impulses,  there  would 
hardly  appear  to  be  grounds  for  affirming  that  Paul  con- 
ceived of  the  flesh  as  the  body,  and  of  the  latter  as  "  com- 
posing the  real,  substantial  essence  of  man."  f  As  the 
seat  of  sin  and  the  cause  of  the  infirmity  by  reason  of 
which  man  is  brought  into  bondage  to  it,  he  doubtless 
regarded  it,  but  he  distinguished  it  from  the  self,  and 
represented  it  as  the  external,  earthly  side  of  man,  the 
"  members,"  whereby  he  is  allied  to  the  lower  animals,  and 
distinguished  from  God  and  heavenly  creatures.  In  this 
sense  Paul  frequently  employs  the  term  of  the  material  of 
the  earthly  body,  designating  events,  conditions,  and  rela- 

*See  Rom.  vii.  7-25. 

fSo  Baur,  Neutestamentl.  Theol.,  p.  143.  Holsten's  view  is  essentially 
the  same,  who  regards  6dp%  and  avQp&JitoS  as  substantially  synonymous  in 
the  Pauline  teaching.  Zum  Evangel.  Paulus,  etc.,  p.  393. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  \yj 

tions  which  refer  to  the  body  as  "  fleshly,"  "  in  the  flesh," 
and  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  *  without  regard  to  moral 
relations.  The  term  is  generally  employed  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  designate  man  as  mortal,  frail,  and  weak  ;  and 
as  it  is  but  a  step  from  this  idea  to  that  of  moral  weakness 
as  residing  in  his  physical  organism,  we  find  in  a  single 
passage  in  the  Psalms  sin  connected  with  the  impure 
origin  of  the  body  in  the  natural  act  of  generation,  f  But 
in  general  the  Old  Testament  writers  do  not  recognize  the 
body  as  the  seat  of  sin.  In  the  later  Jewish  theology 
however,  it  was  regarded  not  only  as  the  ground  of  intel- 
lectual and  moral  weakness,  but  as  the  seat  of  sin,  par- 
ticularly in  the  sexual  instinct.  Paul  shows  points  of 
contact  with  the  Old-Testament  conception  and  with  that 
of  the  teaching  in  which  he  had  been  reared  in  such  ex- 
pressions as :  "I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood," 
"  fleshly  wisdom,"  "  fleshly  weapons,"  etc.,  \  and  when  he 
calls  the  Corinthians  "  fleshly  "  or  "  unspiritual"  because 
of  their  party-strifes,  indicating  that  they  were  merely 
natural  men,  or  as  he  had  just  before  called  them,  "  psychi- 
cal "  men  who  were  destitute  of  understanding  for  spiritual 
things,§  though  not  necessarily  without  that  power  of 
mind  or  reason  (vov?)  which  is  indeed  capable  of  perceiv- 
ing and  even  taking  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  but  unable 
alone  to  fulfil  it. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  flesh  was,  then,  substantially  that 
of  the  Jewish  theology  and  speculation,  according  to  which 
there  resides  in  the  body  an  impulse  to  evil-doing  (yeser 
ha-ra).  The  flesh  was  to  him  the  seat  of  a  power  of  sin, 
of  a  bad  impulse  opposed  to  the  Spirit  and  to  "  the  in- 

*  Rom.  i.  3,  ii.  28,  ix.  3  ;  2  Cor.  x.  3  ;  Gal.  ii.  20  ;  Phil.  i.  22,  24. 
f  Ps.  Ii.  7.  \  Gal.  i.  16  ;  2  Cor.  i.  12,  x.  3  f. 

§  I  Cor.  ii.  14,  iii.  1-4. 


1 78        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ward  man,"  whose  better  knowledge  and  will  it  contin- 
ually resisted  and  dominated.  "  The  mind  of  the  flesh 
is  enmity  against  God  ;  for  it  doth  not  submit  itself  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither,  indeed,  can  it."  It  has  desires 
against  the  Spirit,  and  renders  its  subjects  unable  to  do 
the  things  which  they  would.*  In  spite  of  the  intimate 
relation  to  the  body  which  the  flesh  is  represented  as 
holding  it  does  not  appear  that  Paul  identified  it  with  the 
body  f  nor,  indeed,  with  the  natural  man  as  a  personality, 
although  "  according  to  the  flesh  "  and  "  according  to  the 
[natural]  man  "  are  synonymous  expressions.^:  The  flesh 
produces  not  alone  sins  which  may  be  regarded  as  origi- 
nating in  the  body,  for  although  offenses  against  chastity 
hold  a  prominent  place  in  the  catalogue  of  "  the  works  of 
the  flesh,"  there  are  mentioned  also,  idolatry,  sorcery, 
hatreds,  strife,  rivalry,  outbursts  of  wrath,  cabals,  divi- 
sions, factions,  envyings,  etc.§  It  is  but  a  step  from  the 
conception  of  the  flesh  as  the  seat  of  sin  to  an  identifica- 
tion of  it  with  sin  itself,  so  that  the  expression  "  to  walk 
in  or  according  to  the  flesh  "  should  be  equivelant  to,  "  to 
live  in  sin  or  according  to  the  principle  of  sin."  Paul 
appears,  then,  to  have  employed  the  term  in  three  signi- 
fications to  denote  :  I,  simply  the  body  without  reference 
to  moral  relations ;  2,  the  natural  man  in  his  sensuous 
nature  and  moral-religious  weakness  ;  3,  the  natural  man 

*  Rom.  viii.  7;  Gal.  v.i6. 

fin  Rom.  vi.  6  the  destruction  of  "the  body  of  sin "  is  mentioned. 
This  (ScSjua  rrjt  diiapriaS  is  probably  not  identical  with  ddp%,  but  may  be 
the  body  as  the  "organ"  of  sin,  according  to  Tholuck,  or  as  subject  to, 
governed  by,  sin,  according  to  Meyer. 

\  Baur  appears  to  go  too  far  in  maintaining  that  the  (fo'/o£  is  conceived  of 
AS  so  dominating  the  vovS  that  the  latter  was  in  Paul's  thought  only  an 
"  accident  "  of  the  former.  Neutestamentl.  Theol.,  p.  146. 

§  Gal.  v.  19  f. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  1/9 

as  positively  sinful.  The  words  "  to  live  in  the  flesh," 
and  "  to  walk  in  the  flesh,"  and  "  to  walk  according  to  the 
flesh,"  appear  to  have  now  one  and  now  another  of  these 
meanings  according  to  the  connection.* 

The  preponderance  of  the  idea  of  sin  as  a  power  and  a 
principle  in  human  nature  in  the  thought  of  Paul  throws 
somewhat  into  the  background  the  conception  of  sin  as 
an  act  and  its  relation  as  such  to  man's  self-determination 
or  freedom.  In  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  from  which  specula- 
tion was  quite  remote,  the  reverse  is  the  case.  We  find, 
however,  in  Paul's  writings  no  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  this  power  of  evil  which  has  its  seat  in  the  flesh.  To 
say  that  it  was  inherited  only  removes  the  source  farther 
back,  for  Paul  evidently  regarded  the  fleshly  impulse  as 
latent  in  Adam  until  the  positive  commandment  awoke 
it.  The  impulses  to  wrong-doing,  the  lusts  of  the  flesh, 
the  passions,  which  bring  forth  the  horrid  brood  of  evil 
works,  he  must  have  thought  to  be  natural  to  man  and 
not  the  result  of  his  free  choice.  The  power  of  sin  in 
the  flesh  did  not  spring  from  man's  free  personal  acts  of 
sin.  Rather  man  as  a  fleshly  creature  is  powerless  under 
the  might  of  sin  in  his  members,  sold  to  it,  like  a  slave. 
He  is  unable  to  do  the  good,  however  much  he  may 
approve  it  with  his  "  mind,"  and  feel  himself  under 
obligations  to  obey  the  divine  law.  The  flesh  does  not 
strive  against  the  law,  and  bring  about  disobedience  be- 
cause man  has  decided  by  an  act  of  free  choice  against 
the  commandment  of  God,  but  because  the  impulse  of  the 
flesh  is  in  itself  toward  evil  and  against  God,  and  he  wljp 
is  under  its  power  is  not  able  to  decide  for  the  good  and 
perform  it.  His  sole  hope  of  deliverance  is  in  somewhat 

*  See  2  Cor.  x.  3  ;  Gal.  ii.  20  ;  Phil.  i.  22  for  the  first  sense  ;  Rom.  viii. 
4  for  the  last ;  and  2  Cor.  x.  2  f  for  a  double  sense. 


ISO       THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

which  he  has  not  in  himself.  Only  the  "  law  of  the  Spirit 
of  life  "  can  set  him  free  in  Christ  Jesus  from  this  tyran- 
nous law  of  sin  and  death.*  If,  then,  sin  as  a  principle  or 
a  power  is  original  and  latent  in  human  nature,  only 
awaiting  the  emergence  of  the  law  to  "  seize  the  opportu- 
nity "  and  work  all  manner  of  sinful  desiref  ;  if  it  thus 
existed  in  our  first  parents,  and  the  "  first  man "  was 
"  of  the  earth,  earthy,"  a  "natural"  man  of  flesh  and 
blood  which  "  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,"  so  that 
it  cannot  be  said  that  sin  as  an  act  of  transgression 
wrought  a  change  in  human  flesh  in  Adam  or  effects  one 
in  that  of  the  individual  sinner ;  if  the  body  is  in  its 
nature  a  "  body  of  sin  "  and  a  "  body  of  death "  to 
which  the  power  of  sin  clings  so  persistently  that  even  in 
those  who  as  Christians  have  received  the  counteracting 
power  of  the  Spirit  it  cannot  be  fully  overcome — how 
can  sin  and  death  be  said  to  have  come  into  the  world 
through  Adam's  transgression  ?  To  the  first  man,  who 
in  contrast  with  the  second  man,  Christ,  the  life-giving 
spirit  {  was  not  spiritual,  but  "  animal  "  and  of  the  "  cor- 
ruption "  which  does  not  "  inherit  incorruption,"  death 
cannot  be  regarded  as  incidental  and  dependent  on  an 
inward  act,  but  must  be  natural  and  necessary.  In  direct 
opposition  to  this  Paul  teaches  that  death  in  the  race  and 
the  individual  is  the  result  of  a  decree  of  God  in  punish- 
ment of  sin,  and  hence  is  not  a  natural  necessity,  but  a 
judicial  dispensation  called  forth  by  the  act  of  man.  The 
Hellenistic  doctrine  that  death  is  natural  and  necessary 
in  the  constitution  of  man  and  that  of  the  Jewish  the- 
ology that  it  is  the  consequence  of  sin  appear  to  be  united 
in  the  Pauline  teaching  without  definite  reconciliation. 
Again,  Paul's  teaching  furnishes  no  answer  to  the  ques- 

*  Rom.  viii.  8.  f  Rom.  vii.  8.  \  i  Cor.  xv.  45,  46. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  l8l 

tion  how  sin  can  be  said  to  have  come  into  the  world 
through  Adam,  since  it  resides  as  a  principle  in  all  men  as 
naturally  "  fleshly,"  and  in  each  only  awaits  the  occasion 
furnished  by  the  law  "  to  come  to  life."  If  it  is  not  trans- 
mitted, and  all  men  are  subject  to  death  only  "  inasmuch 
as  all  have  sinned,"  the  significance  of  Adam's  causal 
relation  to  it  as  a  world-power  and  a  universal  principle  is 
not  apparent.  Furthermore,  if  man  was  originally  con- 
stituted by  his  Creator  with  a  dominant  power  of  sin  in 
his  members,  if  he  is  naturally  so  subject  and  enslaved 
to  the*  flesh  that  in  spite  of  all  his  knowledge  and  good- 
will he  does  what  he  would  not,*  the  consistency  of  the 
judgment  which  pronounces  a  universal  condemnation  of 
death  upon  the  race  on  account  of  sin  is  not  obvious. 
Yet  with  all  this  teaching  of  the  fatality  of  the  flesh  Paul 
appears  to  recognize  a  power  of  choice  in  man  which  may 
be  appealed  to,  and  censures  the  heathen  because  they 
•*'  did  not  choose  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge."  f 
But  this  appears  to  have  been  written  when  he  was  not 
influenced  by  the  exigencies  of  his  theory  that  man  can- 
not be  saved  without  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

4. — CHRISTOLOGY. 

The  Christology  of  Paul  proceeds  from  the  point  of  view 
from  which  his  entire  theology  was  developed,  that  Chris- 
tianity was  not  a  fulfilled  Judaism,  but  a  new  and  inde- 
pendent principle  of  life,  a  "  new  creation,"  J  related  to 
Judaism  as  freedom  to  bondage,  as  the  Spirit  to  the  flesh. 
It  is  a  transformation  of  the  Christology  of  the  original 
apostles  and  of  the  tradition  of  Jesus  on  which  the  synop- 
tical Gospels  are  founded  in  that  it  throws  into  the  back- 

*  Rom.  vii.  19.  f  Rom.  i.  28.  \  naivrj 


1 82       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ground  the  teaching  and  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  brings 
into  the  foreground  his  atoning  sacrifice  and  a  metaphysi- 
cal conception  of  "  the  second  Adam  "  and  "  the  man  from 
heaven,"  by  which  the  ordinary  Jewish  Messianism  was 
altogether  transcended.  Accordingly,  Paul  never  applies 
to  Christ  the  appellation,  Son  of  Man,  which  was  Jesus' 
favorite  designation  of  himself.  He  does  not  appear  to 
use  the  term  Son  of  God  in  the  Jewish-Messianic  sense, 
but  rather  in  order  to  indicate  that  Christ  was  of  the 
essence  of  God  in  that  he  was  "  Spirit,"  "  Spirit  of  holiness," 
and  "  life-giving  Spirit,"  even  "  image  of  God."  *  His 
conception  of  the  nature  of  Christ  was  determined  by  his 
theory  of  the  work  of  Christ.  As  the  Saviour  of  men 
from  sin  he  must  have  been  without  sin.  f  Since  he  com- 
municated the  Spirit  to  men,  he  must  have  been  of  a 

*  Rom.  i.  4 ;  i  Cor.  xv.  45  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  17  ;  etnooy  rov  Beovy  2  Cor.  iv. 
4.  In  the  thought  of  Paul,  Christ  was  not  simply  an  exalted  man,  but 
rather  a  heavenly  being  subordinate  to  God.  He  was  not  God,  but  the  Son, 
"  the  image  of  God,"  the  divine  glory  shone  in  his  face  ;  and  he  must  at  last 
become  subject  to  Him  who  put  all  things  under  him.  (2  Cor.  iv.  4,  6  ;  i 
Cor.  xv.  28).  The  first  man,  Adam,  became  a  living  soul,  but  the  last  Adam 
became  (was  created)  a  life-giving  spirit  ;  the  first  man  is  from  the  earth,  the 
second  man  is  from  heaven  (i  Cor.  xv.  45,  46).  From  this  point  of  view 
should  probably  be  interpreted  the  difficult  passage,  Rom.  i.  4,  "  appointed 
with  power  to  be  the  Son  of  God  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead."  "According  to  the  flesh,"  i.  ^.,  in  his  earthly 
manifestation,  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  but  according  to  the  spirit  of 
holiness,  the  spiritual  side  of  his  nature,  the  Spirit  which  he  was  ("  the  Lord 
is  the  Spirit ")  he  was  set  forth  by  the  resurrection  in  his  true  nature  as  the 
Son  of  God,  that  is,  assigned  to  his  proper  rank  as  "  the  second  man  from 
heaven,"  the  originator  and  archetype  of  a  new  spiritual  mankind.  This 
Pauline  conception  appears  to  be  closely  related  to  the  idea  of  the  Jewish 
theology,  doubtless  familiar  to  the  apostle,  according  to  which  the  Messiah 
as  Son  of  Man  was  kept  in  heaven  until  the  time  of  his  manifestation.  Cf. 
Weizsacker,  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  p.  124. 

f  2  Cor.  v.  21,  rby  HTJ  yvovra  djj.apTiav. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  183 

spiritual  nature.  If  whatever  Adam  as  the  fleshly  head 
of  the  race  represented  of  corruption  and  sin,  if  whatever 
was  thought  to  have  come  into  the  world  through  him, 
was  counteracted  in  Christ,  then  must  Christ  have  been  a 
man  of  an  essentially  different  kind.  Over  against  the 
earthly  man  was  "  the  man  from  heaven."  If  through  the 
one  came  death  through  the  other  came  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.*  Since  man,  as  the  descendant  of  Adam  who 
was  only  a  "  living  soul,"  f  a  merely  psychical  man,  could 
not  by  nature  have  the  Spirit,  he  must  be  transformed 
according  to  the  image  of  the  spiritual  Adam,  and  become 
a  "new  creation."  Christ  is  revealed  as  the  life-giving 
Spirit,  which  he  was  by  creation,  through  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.f  A  new  power  of  life  is  disclosed  in  him 
which  man  may  appropriate  by  faith,  and  through  it  over- 
come the  flesh  which  holds  him  in  bondage,  and  from  him 
begins  a  process  of  renewal  which  the  Holy  Spirit  effects, 
transforming  the  sinful  children  of  Adam  into  children  of 
God,  the  fleshly  men  into  spiritual  men.  In  this  Chris- 
tology  there  is  a  transformation  not  only  of  the  Old-Testa- 
ment Jewish  Messianism  but  of  Jesus'  teaching  regarding 
himself.  For  the  conception  of  Christ  which  it  contains 
is  equally  remote  from  the  second  David,  the  victorious 
prince,  the  lion  of  the  house  of  Judah,  and  from  the  suffer- 
ing Son  of  Man,  the  spiritual  teacher  and  prophet  of 

*  I  Cor.  xv.  21,  47. 

\  ipvxtf  £do6a.  In  the  Pauline  anthropology  a  spiritual  or  pneumatic 
principle  is  accorded  to  man  ;  but  in  Adam  and  his  natural  descendants  the 
psychical  or  sensuous  is  regarded  as  dominant,  while  in  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  the  spiritual  predominates,  so  that  it  may  be  said  of  him  that  he  is 
essentially  7tv£v/j.a,  and  not  merely  ICYEVJLKX,  but  TO  itv£v/j.a.  "  The 
Spirit "  which  through  him  is  communicated  to  men  should  not  be  confounded 
with  spirit  as  an  element  of  human  nature,  the  rational  power,  etc. 

J  i  Cor.  xv.  45  ;  Rom.  i.  4. 


1 84       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

righteousness.  The  metaphysical  second  Adam,  the  man 
from  heaven,  neither  ushers  in  an  earthly  kingdom  at  the 
head  of  armies  nor  brings  a  message  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  teaching  men  how  to  enter  it  by  the  attainment  of  a 
human  righteousness. 

While  this  conception  of  Christ  as  the  man  from  heaven 
is  unique  in  relation  to  the  New-Testament  circle  of  ideas, 
and  was  first  introduced  by  Paul  into  Christian  literature, 
it  is  doubtful  that  he  originated  it.  The  notion  of  an 
ideal  man  was  entertained  by  Philo,  and  Plato  is  suggested 
where  we  read  in  this  Alexandrian  philosopher  of  a  dif- 
ference between  man  as  created  in  time  and  man  as  found 
in  the  image  of  God  before  time  was,  the  former,  of  body 
and  soul,  mortal,  the  latter,  idea,  pure  form,  incorporeal. 
Again  he  speaks  explicitly  of  a  "  heavenly  man,"  and  an 
"  earthly  man."  The  Messianism  of  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lators of  the  Bible  shows  itself  in  the  connection  of  the 
idea  of  preexistence  with  the  person  of  Christ,*  who  is 
arbitrarily  assumed  by  them  to  have  been  in  the  thought 
of  the  original  writers.  In  the  Enoch-Parables  the  Messiah 
is  represented  as  being  in  the  image  of  an  ideal  man  and 
as  preexistent:  "His  appearance  was  that  of  a  man, 
and  full  of  grace  was  his  countenance  like  a  holy  angel  "  ; 
"  Before  the  stars  of  heaven  were  made  was  his  name 
named  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  of  spirits  "  ;  "  And 
therefore  was  he  chosen  and  hidden  before  Him  before 


*  In  Ps.  Ixxii.  5  it  is  said  of  the  king  :  "  They  shall  fear  thee  as  long  as 
the  sun  and  the  moon  endure, "  etc.  The  Septuagint  reads  here  as  of  a  pre- 
existent Messiah  :  "  He  will  live  as  long  as  the  sun,  and  was  before  the 
moon."  In  Ps.  ex.  it  is  said  of  the  king  :  "  Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in 
the  day  of  thy  power,  in  the  beauty  of  holiness  from  the  womb  of  the  morn- 
ing." The  Septuagint  reads,  "  I  brought  thee  [the  Messiah]  forth  from  the 
womb  before  the  morning  star." 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  185 

the  world  was  created,"  etc.*  That  Paul  thought  Christ 
as  the  man  from  heaven  to  have  been  a  created  being  is 
evident  from  the  connection  in  which  he  places  his  origin 
with  that  of  the  first  man,  Adam.  The  one  as  well  as  the 
other  "  became."  f  There  is  great  probability  that  he  also 
believed  Christ  to  have  existed  as  a  celestial  being  prior 
to  his  appearance  upon  the  earth  and  even  to  have  taken 
part  in  the  creation  of  the  world.  In  connection  with 
instructions  regarding  things  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols 
he  says  :  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  from 
whom  are  all  things,  and  we  to  Him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through  him,";); 
Here  it  is  certainly  probable  that  the  words  "  from  whom 
are  all  things  "  and  "  through  whom  are  all  things  "  should 
be  understood  as  conveying  essentially  the  same  idea  both 
as  to  the  extent  of  "  all  things  "  and  as  to  the  production 
of  them,  in  the  former  case  by  a  first  cause  and  in  the 
latter  by  an  agent.  It  is  extremely  arbitrary  to  interpret 
"all  things"  as  referring  in  the  former  clause  to  the  uni- 
verse, and  in  the  latter  to  the  economy  of  salvation,  or  to 
assume  the  idea  of  creation  in  the  former,  and  that  of 
government  in  the  latter.  Preexistence  is  very  clearly 
implied  in  the  declarations  that  "  God  sent  His  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  and  that  "  When  the  fulness  of 
time  came  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  born  of  a  woman."  § 
For  although  the  idea  of  a  sending  of  Jesus  and  of  prophets 
is  expressed  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  to  which  the  concep- 

*  Enoch  xlvi.  i ,  xlviii.  3,  6.  See  Dillmann,  Das  Buch  Henoch,  p.  160. 
Toy's  opinion  that  an  ideal  preexistence  may  here  be  intended  (Judaism 
and  Christianity,  p.  326)  is  not  supported  by  Dillmann  with  whom  Hausrath 
agrees. 

f  i  Cor.  xv.  45,  eyevero. 

\  i  Cor.  viii.  6.  §  Rom.  viii.  3  ;  Gal.  iv.  4. 


1 86       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

tion  of  preexistence  is  foreign,*  yet  the  case  is  quite  dif- 
ferent here  where  the  words  "  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh  "  and  "  born  of  a  woman  "  evidently  denote  special 
and  peculiar  conditions,  and  imply  that  the  writer  thought 
of  Christ  as  not  originally  connected  with  a  body  of  flesh 
and  as  not  necessarily  existing  only  through  a  human 
birth.  In  like  manner  the  declaration  that  Christ  in  con- 
trast with  Adam,  who  was  "  of  the  earth,  earthy,"  was 
the  man  "  from  heaven,"  f  must  mean  either  that  his 
origin  was  from  heaven  in  the  sense  that  he  was  generated 
by  the  Spirit,  or  that  he  preexisted  in  the  celestial  regions. 
But  since  the  former  idea  is  totally  foreign  to  the  Pauline 
Christology,  the  latter  is  probably  conveyed  in  the  ex- 
pression. The  words:  "For  ye  know  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich  yet  for  your 
sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty  might 
be  rich,"  \  can  only  mean  that  for  the  sake  of  saving  men 
he  renounced  the  glory,  dominion,  and  blessedness  which 
in  his  preexistent  state  he  had  with  the  Father,  in  order 
to  enter  upon  the  humiliation  of  his  incarnation.  The 
interpretations,  "  although  he  might  have  been  rich,"  and 
"  although  he  is  rich,"  are  not  only  ungrammatical,  but 
contrary  to  the  connection,  in  which  the  apostle  urges 
upon  the  Corinthians  the  practice  of  liberality  in  giving 
for  the  needs  of  others,  and  cites  the  example  of  Christ 

*  Mat.  x.  40,  xxiii.  34  ;  Luke  xx.  13.  The  absence  of  the  idea  of  the 
preexistence  of  Christ  from  the  Jewish-Christian  tradition  and  from  the 
synoptic  Gospels  which  are  based  upon  it  may  perhaps  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  early  tradition  was  the  naive  historical  account  of  tl.e  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  colored  chiefly  by  earthly  Messianic  expectations.  It  was 
reserved  for  the  speculative  mind  of  Paul  to  introduce  this  idea  from  the  Jew- 
ish thelogy  and  perhaps  from  Philo  as  a  presumption  necessary  to  his  theory  of 
redemption  which  required  no  less  a  personage  than  "the  man  from  heaven." 

f  i  Cor.  xv.  47.  \  2  Cor.  viii.  9. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  187 

who,  though  he  was  rich,  became  poor.  A  similar  thought 
of  the  renunciation  of  Christ  is  conveyed  in  the  passage : 
"  Let  this  mind  be  in  you  which  was  in  Christ  Jesus  who, 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  did  not  regard  it  as  a  thing  to 
be  grasped  at  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  made 
himself  of  no  consideration,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  becoming  like  men,"  etc.,  *  where  the  Philippians 
are  exhorted  to  humility  in  imitation  of  Christ  who,  when 
he  was  in  his  preexistent  state  in  the  form  of  God,  that 
is,  as  a  heavenly  being,  spirit,  "the  image  of  God,"f  did 
not  grasp  at  an  equality  with  God,  but  humbled  himself 
to  the  lowly  position  of  a  servant  and  to  the  death  of  the 
cross. 

It  is  not  clear  how  Paul  conceived  of  the  entrance  of 
this  supersensible,  heavenly  being  into  human  conditions 
through  generation.  He  says  that  Christ  "  was  born  of 
the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh."  J  So  much 
may  be  regarded  as  conceded  to  Jewish  Messianism. 
But  he  was  only  "  appointed  "  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in 
the  higher,  transformed  Pauline  sense  of  Messiahship 
through  his  resurrection,  whereby  it  was  manifested  that 
he  was  not  subjected  to  death,  but  had  in  him  the  principle 
of  life,  the  "  life-giving  Spirit "  which  could  not  be 
dominated  as  in  the  case  of  other  men  by  the  principle  of 
sin  in  the  flesh.  The  Pauline  Christology  appears  to 
proceed  from  an  idea  of  a  twofold  creation  of  man, 
suggested  perhaps  by  the  double  account  in  Genesis,  that 
of  an  "  earthy  "  man,  Adam,  and  that  of  a  "  heavenly  " 
man,  Christ,  who  remained  in  heaven,  essentially  Spirit 
and  so  God-allied,  a  being  of  light,  reflecting,  the  glory 

*  Phil.  ii.  5-8.  f  2  Cor.  iv.  4. 

\  These  words  evidently  exclude  the  supernatural  generation  as  recorded 
by  the  first  and  third  evangelists. 


1 88        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  God,  until  "  the  fulness  of  the  time  came,"  when 
he  was  "  sent  forth,"  "  that  we  might  be  adopted  as 
sons."*  Christ  was  accordingly  the  spiritual  or  pneumatic 
man,  the  typical  man,  who  represented  in  himself  the 
perfection  of  human  nature.  In  his  earthly  condition, 
united  with  the  flesh,  his  original,  preexistent  splendor 
as  "  Lord  of  glory  "  was  not  fully  manifested,  but  he  was 
"  appointed  with  power,"  that  is,  manifested  in  his  true 
nature  by  the  resurrection,  after  which  he  returned  to  the 
heavenly  regions  in  a  "  body  of  glory "  to  resume  his 
former  estate.  The  teaching  that  Christ  was  "  sent  "  in 
the  "  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  "  f  appears  to  indicate  that 
his  earthly  body  was  not  his  original  corporeity  corre- 
sponding to  his  original,  heavenly  manifestation,  but  one 
assumed  for  his  entrance  upon  human  conditions. 
Whether  this  "  likeness  "  J  was  conceived  by  Paul  as  in- 
dicating that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  tainted  with  sin  like 
that  of  other  men,  or  that,  while  like  these  in  respect  to 
material  and  form,  he  was  unlike  them  in  being  free  from 
sin,  is  a  difficult  and  much-contested  exegetical  question. 
Since  the  word  "likeness  "  may  mean  either  similarity  or 
equality,  it  is  evident  that  by  itself  it  can  furnish  no 
explanation  of  the  thought  of  the  apostle,  for  it  is  inde- 
terminable whether  likeness  in  all  respects  or  only  in  some 
is  intended.  In  the  Pauline  anthropology  the  flesh  is  by 
nature  sinful,  that  is,  it  is  the  seat  of  impulses  to  sin.  If, 
then,  to  be  "  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  "  is  to  have  the 
natural  tendencies  and  impulses  to  sin,  it  can  hardly  be 
said  that  Christ  "  did  not  know  sin."  §  With  a  flesh  in 
all  respects  like  that  of  other  men  he  must  have  known 
sin  as  impulse  and  temptation  to  wrong-doing,  for  not 

*  Gal.  iv.  4.  f  Rom.  viii.  3. 

2  Cor.  v.  2L 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  189 

actually  to  have  transgressed  can  hardly  be  the  meaning 
of  the  words,  "  did  not  know  sin."  But  if  Paul  intended 
to  teach  that  Christ  was  as  to  his  flesh  in  all  respects  like 
other  men,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  he  did  not  say  simply 
"  in  sinful  flesh  "  instead  of  "  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh." 
On  the  other  hand,  if  he  meant  that  Christ  was  in  some 
respects  like  other  men  as  to  his  flesh,  he  used  the  word 
"  likeness"  in  accordance  with  his  usage  of  it  elsewhere,* 
and  taught  here  in  accord  with  his  Christology  in  general 
which  recognizes  in  Christ  no  temptation  to  sin,  no 
struggle  with  the  flesh.  From  the  interpretation  that  the 
flesh  of  Christ  was  not  thought  to  be  like  that  of  other 
men  in  all  respects  there  is,  however,  the  possible  infer- 
ence that  his  flesh  was  not  conceived  as  real,  but  only  as 
an  "accident"  of  the  Spirit  which  he  essentially  was.f 
But  to  this  view  is  decidedly  opposed  the  teaching  that 
Christ  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh.  The  complete  manhood  implied  in  this  expression 
is  also  with  difficulty  reconcilable  with  the  idea  that  he 
did  not  possess  the  "  sinful  flesh  "  common  to  all  men. 
The  problem  perhaps  presents  difficulties  which  cannot 
be  entirely  overcome  by  exegetical  skill.  The  preponder- 

*  Rom.  i.  23,  v.  14  ;  Phil.  ii.  7. 

f  This  Docetic  view  has  been  maintained  by  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  as  the 
Pauline  idea  of  the  flesh  of  Christ.  See  Baur,  Neutestamentl.  Theol.,  pp. 
189  f,  and  Hilgenfeld,  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.,  1871,  pp.  182  ff. 
Although  the  extraordinary  nature  of  the  flesh  of  Jesus  appears  to  imply  the 
supernatural  conception,  there  is  no  intimation  of  this  idea  in  Paul's  writings. 
It  is  in  fact  excluded  by  the  teaching  that  Jesus  was  "born  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh  " — an  expression  which  can  only  mean  accord- 
ing to  Jewish  usage  that  his  generation  was  through  a  male  descendant 
of  David.  Cf.  Pfleiderer,  Der  Paulinismus,  2te  Ausg.,  p.  133  ;  Stevens, 
Pauline  Theology,  1892,  p.  212.  Paul  does  not  solve  the  problem  of  sinless- 
ness  in  a  man  naturally  generated.  The  sinlessness  of  some  men  was,  how- 
ever, maintained  in  the  Jewish  theology.  See  Weber,  System,  etc.,  p.  224. 


THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ance  of  probability  appears,  however,  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
conclusion  that,  if  Paul  was  not  writing  carelessly,  and 
chose  the  word  "  likeness  "  with  intention,  he  meant  to 
teach  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  only  partly  similar  to 
"  sinful  flesh,"  similar  in  that  it  was  flesh,  dissimilar  in  that 
it  was  not  touched  with  sin.* 

It  is  consistent  with  the  importance  which  Paul  assigns 
to  Christ  as  the  "  man  from  heaven  "  and  with  the  rank 
which  he  conceives  him  to  have  held  in  the  scale  of  being, 
that  in  the  Pauline  Christology  great  significance  should 
be  attached  to  the  work  of  Christ,  or  in  other  words,  that 
salvation  and  the  nature  of  Christ  should  be  closely  con- 
nected with  each  other.  Since  Paul  practically  dis- 
regarded the  teaching  and  example  of  Christ,  and 
constructed  an  original  doctrine  of  his  relation  to  men  as 
Saviour  as  well  as  of  his  person,  there  remained  as  points 
of  attachment  for  his  system  of  thought  only  the  two 
closing  events  of  Jesus'  earthly  career,  his  death  and 
resurrection.  The  significance  which  he  attached  to  the 
former  of  these  is  shown  by  words  which  appear  to 
identify  Christianity  with  the  cross,  so  that  the  teaching 
of  it  is  the  teaching  of  the  cross,  f  and  by  his  declaration 
that  he  was  determined  not  to  know  anything  save  Jesus 

*  See  Zeller,  Zeitschr.  fUr  wissenschaftl.  Theol.,  1870,  pp.  301  ff.  A 
psychological  problem  is  presented  in  the  doctrine  that  Christ,  the  heavenly 
preexistent  man  with  a  developed  spirituality,  became  Jesus,  the  carpenter's 
son,  and  passed  through  the  stages  of  human  growth  and  education.  Yet 
the  fact  undoubtedly  is  that  Paul  thought  of  Jesus  as  an  earthly  man  and  as 
identical  with  the  man  from  heaven.  He  gives  no  intimation  of  the 
presence  in  liis  mind  of  the  problem  how  the  two  personalities  might  be 
reconciled  with  each  other,  and  if  it  ever  occurred  to  him  we  do  not  know 
how  he  solved  it  or  whether  he  attempted  its  solution  at  all.  But  he 
acknowledged  that  he  knew  only  "in  part  "  (i  Cor.  xiii.  9),  and  raised  many 
problems  which  he  did  not  resolve. 

f  X6yo<3  rov  dravpov,  i  Cor.  i.  17. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  IQI 

Christ  and  him  crucified.*  The  significance  which  he 
attached  to  the  death  of  Christ  can  only  be  understood  in 
connection  with  his  idea  of  the  law.  The  cross  and  the 
law  are  antitheses  in  the  doctrinal  system  of  Paul.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  law  demands  fulfilment,  and  on  the 
other,  man  by  reason  of  his  weakness  through  the  flesh  is 
unable  to  render  obedience,  so  that  it  is  a  fundamental 
principle  in  the  Pauline  theology  that  by  the  works  of  the 
law  no  man  shall  be  justified. f  "  What  the  law  could  not 
do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  did,  who 
on  account  of  sin  sent  His  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh,  and  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  on  sin 
in  the  flesh,  so  that  what  was  required  by  the  law  might 
be  accomplished  in  us."  \  Reliance  upon  the  works  of 
the  law  is  futile,  and  all  who  put  their  trust  in  their  own 
obedience  are  self-deceived,  for  instead  of  a  blessing  they 
will  reap  a  curse.  The  only  way  of  deliverance  is  through 
a  new  order  of  things  by  which  the  old  is  done  away.  At 
the  head  of  this  new  order  is  "  the  second  Adam,"  "  the 
man  from  heaven,"  who  accomplishes  for  men  what  they 
could  not  do  of  themselves.  He  takes  their  place  in 
relation  to  the  law  and  the  righteousness  which  it 
requires.  He  redeems  them  (buys  them  off)  from  the 
curse  of  the  law  by  becoming  a  curse  for  them.  §  It  is 
evident  that  this  is  the  only  logical  conclusion  from  the 
Pauline  conception  of  the  law  and  of  righteousness.  The 

*  2  Cor.  ii.  2.  The  reference  by  Paul  of  the  fact  of  the  crucifixion  to  the 
tradition  of  Jesus  in  i  Cor.  xv.  3  ("  that  which  I  received  ")  should  not  be  con- 
founded, as  it  is  by  Weizsacker  (Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  p.  137),  with  a  deriva- 
tion of  his  doctrine  of  the  death  of  Christ  from  the  same  source.  The  words 
"  for  our  sins  "  (yitkp  rear  djuapriGdv  r/juc3v)  are  doubtless  a  Pauline  inter- 
pretation added  to  the  tradition. 

f  Rom.  iii.  20.  \  Rom.  viii.  3  f. 

§  Gal.  iii.  13,  ic,rfy6pa(5sv  7/yU«S  EH  rrjS  nardpaS  rov 


IQ2       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

more  the  law  and  the  ideal  of  righteousness  are  exalted 
in  contrast  with  man's  futile  efforts  to  accomplish  a  per- 
fect obedience,  the  greater  is  the  necessity  for  a  super- 
natural intervention.  God  may  be  merciful  and  forgiving, 
but  the  law  stands  in  the  way  of  the  dispensation  of  His 
grace,  for  its  requirements  must  be  satisfied.  Hence  Paul 
does  not  conceive  of  the  divine  love  as  shown  directly  to 
men,  but  through  Christ.  It  is  commended  to  them  in 
that  while  they  were  yet  sinners  Christ  was  sent  to  furnish 
a  means  of  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  by 
receiving  that  curse  in  his  own  person.  In  the  words, 
"Having  become  a  curse  for  us"  "for"  is  not  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  "  for  our  benefit,"  or  "  for  our 
sake,"  but  "  in  our  stead."  *  As  the  representative  of  the 
human  race  Christ  is  conceived  by  Paul  to  have  taken 
upon  himself  the  penalty  which  the  guilt  of  men  had 
incurred,  and  to  have  "  bought  them  off"  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  which  was  death,  by  himself  dying  for  them.f 

*  vrtep,  "for,"  does  not  necessarily  contain  the  idea  of  representation, 
neither  does  it  exclude  it.  The  idea  of  one  acting  in  the  place  of  another  is 
more  accurately  expressed  by  arri.  Since  vrtep  is  used  by  Paul  of  sins 
(vitkp  d/uaprtGOv)  as  well  as  of  persons,  it  is  perhaps  correct  to  say  with 
Meyer  that  it  does  not  in  itself  convey  the  idea  of  substitution.  But  "  since 
what  is  done  for  one's  advantage  frequently  cannot  be  done  without  acting 
in  one's  stead,  we  easily  understand  how  V7f£p,  like  the  Latin  pro  and  our  for, 
comes  to  signify  '  in  the  place  of.'  "  Grimm-Wilke's  Clavis  N.  T.,  sub  voce. 
Accordingly  the  baptism  "for"  the  dead  (vrtep  roov  vexpoar)  probably 
conveys  the  idea  of  baptism  in  their  stead  (i  Cor.  xv.  29),  and  "that  he 
may  minister  to  me  in  your  place "  (vitkp  tfov)  is  evidently  the  sense  in 
Philem.  13.  Meyer,  it  should,  however,  be  remarked,  regards  Paul's  concep- 
tion of  Christ's  sufferings  as  that  of  a  satisfactio  vicarta,  since  the  latter's 
bloody  death  was  thought  by  the  former  to  be  an  atoning  sacrifice,  according 
to  Rom.  iii.  25.  Commentar,  4te  Aufl.  iv.  p.  190. 

f  Cf.  Rom.  iv.  25,  v.  6,  viii.  3  ;  Gal.  i.  iv.,  iii.  13  ;  Cor.  xv.  3. 

The  question  very  naturally  arises,  how  Paul  conceived  of  the  effect  of 
Christ's  death,  how  he  thought  Christ  could  die  to  the  obligation  of  the  law 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION,  1 93 

This  idea  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  words :  "  We  thus 
judged,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  all  died  ;  and  he  died 
for  all,  that  they  who  live  should  no  longer  live  to  them- 
selves," etc.*  If  the  words,  "  one  died  for  all,"  mean  that 
one  died  for  the  benefit  of  all,  then  it  would  not  follow 

for  mankind.  It  is  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  penetrate  into  the 
apostle's  thought  so  as  to  find  a  solution  of  this  problem  which  may,  indeed, 
not  have  lain  in  his  mind  at  all.  His  conception  of  the  personality  of  Christ 
together  with  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  sacrifice  may  throw  some  light  upon  it. 
The  resurrection  proved  to  Paul  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  he  con- 
ceived the  Messiah  to  be  the  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race,  and 
his  death  to  be  the  fulfilment  of  a  divine  design  of  redemption.  Now  since 
death  is  the  wages  of  sin,  the  sinless  Messiah  could  not  have  died  except  to 
pay  the  penalty  of  the  sins  of  others,  to  satisfy  the  law  for  them,  to  "buy 
them  off,"  so  as  to  free  them  from  its  curse.  In  the  Jewish  economy  the 
sacrificial  victim  died  in  the  place  of  the  sinner,  and  averted  his  death.-  So 
righteousness  and  life  are  possible  to  sinners  according  to  the  Pauline- 
Christian  idea  only  through  the  representative  death  of  Christ  as  a'  sin- 
offering.  This  objective  revelation  of  grace  is  made  subjectively  available 
through  faith.  (See  Holsten,  Zum  Evangel,  d.  Paulus  u.  d.  Petrus,  p.  251.) 

The  law  had  reference  to  sin,  "came  that  the  trespass  might  abound " 
(Rom.  v.  20),  and  its  chief  significance  related  to  the  penalty.  When  this 
was  paid  he  for  whom  it  was  paid  was  set  free  from  the  law,  since  it  no 
longer  had  any  claim  upon  him.  Christ,  as  the  representative  of  mankind, 
paid  the  penalty  for  all,  satisfied  the  law,  died  to  it,  since  it  demanded 
death.  He  thus  became  "the  end  of  the  law"  (Rom.  x.  4),  for  in  his  death 
it  was  done  away  (2  Cor.  iii.  13,  14).  Men  were  "bought  off"  from  its 
curse  by  his  becoming  "a  curse  "  for  them.  The  law  did  not  excommuni- 
cate him,  but  he  did  it  away  by  satisfying  its  claims  "one  for  all."  Ac- 
cordingly, men  through  faith  are  "delivered"  from  it,  "  having  died  [in 
Christ's  death]  to  that  by  which  they  were  bound  "  (Rom.  vii.  6).  In  Paul's 
thought  the  law  had  no  saving  efficacy.  In  the  atonement  of  the  saving 
person,  Christ,  the  law  is  supplanted,  and  gives  place  for  believers  to  a 
"new  covenant,"  "the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life"  being  introduced  by  which 
men  are  "set  free  [through  faith]  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death  "(Rom. 
viii.  2).  Christ  "  was  made  a  curse"  because  he  received  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  It  was  \^Q  payment  by  him,  not  the  particular  manner  of  his  suffering, 
that  sets  free  all  who  accept  him  by  faith. 

*  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15,  vnkp  TtdvTGOv 
13 


194       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

that  therefore  all  died,  but  that  on  account  of  the  death 
of  the  one  for  them  they  would  not  need  to  die.  But 
Paul's  conclusion  from  the  premise  that  one  died  for  all  is 
that  therefore  all  died,  and  to  him,  "  one  for  all,"  signified, 
one  as  the  representative  of  all  in  the  sense  that  his  act  or 
suffering  is  regarded  as  that  of  those  whom  he  represents. 
Evidently  the  idea  is  not  that  all  really  died,  but  that  in 
Christ  as  their  representative  are  regarded  as  having  died. 
The  penalty  of  the  law,  death,  having  been  paid  by  him 
who,  as  the  second  Adam,  the  spiritual  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  the  race,  suffered  it  on  the  cross,  men  may  be 
regarded  as  in  him  dead  to  the  law,  set  free  from  its  curse. 
They  "  have  been  crucified  with  Christ.*  They  are  identi- 
fied with  him  in  his  death.  He  is  "  the  end  of  the  law  "  f 
to  them,  as  he  is  the  beginning  of  life  to  them.  The 
relation  of  Christ  to  mankind,  then,  is  better  expressed 
by  representation  or  identification  than  by  substitution. 
Because  he  was  crucified  for  men,  they  are  crucified  with 
him ;  because  he  lives  they  live,  he  in  them,  they  in 
him. 

The  relation  of  Christ  and  men,  though  reciprocal,  is 
not  in  Paul's  thought  that  of  equals,  so  that  any  man 
might  be  conceived  as  taking  Christ's  place  in  the  plan 
of  redemption.  The  expression  "  The  man  Christ 
Jesus "  evidently  meant  to  him  more  than  the  mere 
humanity  of  Jesus.  Christ  was  without  sin,  and  was 
therefore  qualified  as  the  spotless  head  of  the  race  to  bear 
in  his  death  the  curse  of  the  law  for  all,  having  none  to 
bear  on  his  own  account.  Therefore  the  apostle  says : 
"  Him  who  knew  not  sin  God  made  to  be  sin  for  us,  that 
we  might  become  God's  righteousness  in  him."J  In  his 
earthly  existence  this  "  second  Adam,"  "  the  man  from 

*  Gal.  ii.  20.  f  Rom.  x.  4.  \  Gal.  v.  21. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  1 95 

heaven,"  is  conceived  as  so  representing  mankind  under 
the  conception  of  the  solidarity  of  the  race  that  in  his 
death  all  died,  just  as  by  his  obedience  all  may  be  made 
righteous.  While  the  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  theology, 
that  on  account  of  the  idea  of  the  solidarity  of  the  family 
and  of  the  nation  punishment  and  righteousness  might 
be  vicarious  within  the  limits  of  either,  doubtless  lay  at 
the  bottom  of  this  Pauline  theory  of  atonement,  Paul 
added  to  it  a  subjective  element  in  making  a  personal 
solidarity  with  Christ  the  condition  of  appropriating  the 
benefits  accruing  from  his  death.  The  divine  love  mani- 
fested in  Christ  must  be  responded  to  by  a  personal  love 
and  faith.  Both  the  objective  and  the  subjective  aspects 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  the  fact  and  its  appropriation  by 
men  in  the  interest  of  salvation,  are  expressed  in  the 
words :  "  For  all  have  sinned  and  fail  of  obtaining  the 
glory  which  cometh  from  God ;  being  accepted  as  right- 
eous freely  by  His  grace,  through  the  redemption  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom,  in  his  blood,  through  faith,  God 
hath  set  forth  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  in  order  to  mani- 
fest His  righteousness  on  account  of  His  passing  by  in 
His  forbearance  the  sins  committed  in  former  times;  in 
order  to  manifest  His  righteousness  at  the  present  time, 
so  that  He  may  be  righteous  and  accept  as  righteous  him 
who  hath  faith."  *  Here  the  death  of  Christ,  his  bearing 

*  Rom.  iii.  23-27.  One  can  hardly  refrain  from  asking  why,  if  the  right- 
eousness of  God  had  been  prejudiced  by  "forbearance"  toward  "the  sins 
committed  in  former  times,"  justice  did  not  require  that  the  omitted  punish- 
ment for  these  sins  be  now  inflicted  upon  the  persons  who  committed  them 
(supposing  these  offenders  to  be  still  in  existence),  since  a  former  deficiency 
in  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  righteousness  must,  it  appears,  be  some- 
how made  up  for?!  This  question  Paul  does  not  answer.  A  scheme  of 
atonement  was  evidently  more  prominent  in  his  thought  than  the  require- 
ments of  justice. 


196       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  curse  of  the  law,  is  represented  on  the  one  hand  as  a 
means  of  manifesting  the  righteousness  of  God,  which 
might  appear  to  have  been  invalidated  by  His  failure  to 
administer  due  punishment  for  the  sins  of  the  pre-Christian 
times,  and  on  the  other  as  a  means  of  redemption  for  all 
who  through  faith  will  appropriate  it.  The  use  of  the 
term  "  propitiatory  sacrifice  "  or  "  means  of  propitiation  "  * 
as  some  choose  to  call  it,  raises  a  question  of  some  diffi- 
culty. Who  or  what  was  to  be  propitiated  ?  What  was 
the  obstacle  to  be  removed  ?  If  we  say  that  the  law  was 
satisfied  and  the  righteousness  of  God  vindicated  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  whereby  a  penalty  was  paid  which  had 
not  been  inflicted  on  those  who  had  deserved  it,  we  ap- 
pear to  lay  too  much  stress  upon  abstractions.  What  is 
this  law  which  can  be  satisfied,  and  this  righteousness 
which  can  be  vindicated,  apart  from  God  ?  It  would 
appear  to  be  necessary  to  clear  ideas  on  the  subject  to  say 
that  a  satisfaction  of  the  law  and  of  the  divine  righteous- 
ness must  be  a  satisfaction  rendered  to  God,  and  that  if 
Christ  was  "  set  forth  as  a  means  of  propitiation,"  a 
change  is  implied  in  the  attitude  of  God.  This  view  ap- 
pears to  be  supported  by  the  words  :  "  Much  more,  then, 
being  now  accepted  as  righteous  through  his  blood,  we 
shall  be  saved  through  him  from  the  wrath  [of  God]. 
For  if  while  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  His  Son,  much  more  having  been  reconciled 
shall  we  be  saved  by  his  life."  f  The  deliverance  of 
"enemies"  from  the  peril  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which 
must  be  supposed  to  be  directed  against  them,  can  scarcely 

*  ika6rrjpiov .  The  meaning  "propitiatory  sacrifice"  or  "means  of 
propitiation  "  may  be  regarded  as  a  fairly  well  established  conclusion  of 
exegesis. 

f  Rom.  v.  9-11. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  IQJ 

be  conceived  as  effected  merely  by  a  change  of  disposition 
on  their  part.  The  attitude  of  the  subject  of  the  wrath 
must  be  supposed  to  be  changed  in  order  that  its  objects 
may  be  secure.  This  change  Paul  conceived  to  have  been 
brought  about  by  the  death  of  Christ  which  was  propitia- 
tory in  the  sense  that  it  satisfied  God  in  respect  to  His 
law  and  His  righteousness.  The  penalty  of  the  law,  in 
paying  which  themselves  men  would  have  perished,  having 
been  paid  by  the  great  head  of  the  race,  those  who  were 
formerly  enemies  may  be  "  accepted  as  righteous  through 
his  blood."  They  are  thus  brought  into  a  condition  of 
reconciliation  with  God,  and  since  the  still  living  Christ  is 
conceived  as  active  in  the  interest  of  salvation  in  his  state 
of  exaltation,  they  may  "  be  saved  by  his  life."  The 
reconciliation  is  effected  by  the  removal  of  the  human 
guilt,  which  occasions  the  judgment  of  the  divine  wrath, 
through  Christ's  satisfaction  of  the  law.  That  this  was 
the  apostle's  point  of  view  is  evident  from  his  declaration 
that  in  Christ  God  was  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself 
in  that  He  did  not  reckon  to  them  their  trespasses.*  Paul 
did  not  attempt  a  formal  reconciliation  of  the  love  and 
wrath  of  God.  He  laid,  however,  the  chief  stress  upon 

*  2  Cor.  v.  19.  How  Christ  could  effect  man's  redemption  by  standing 
in  his  place  as  the  representative  of  the  race,  and  suffering  the  consequences 
of  human  guilt  ;  how  the  righteousness  of  God  could  be  vindicated  by  the 
pains  of  a  guiltless  sufferer  ;  how  in  accordance  with  natural  law  any  one 
can  atone  for  an  offender's  sin  except  the  offender  himself  ;  and  how  the 
procedure  in  question  is  reconcilable  with  divine  justice  and  with  the  his- 
torical method  of  man's  education  and  discipline  through  suffering  for  his 
errors  and  transgressions — these  problems  are  not  solved  by  Paul.  It  is 
doubtful  that  they  admit  of  solution  upon  his  premises.  They  indicate  the 
weak  points  in  his  theology,  and  perhaps  account  in  part  for  its  early  and 
late  decline.  It  contains  many  "  stumbling-blocks  "  to  every  one  who  can- 
not think  the  thoughts  of  a  Jew,  and  has  been  made  acceptable  to  modern 
thought  only  by  a  rationalizing  of  its  distinctive  tenets. 


198        THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  former,  and  appeared  to  conceive  of  it  as  original  in 
the  divine  nature  and  not  as  resulting  from  the  atone- 
ment. But  that  nothing  might  be  done  to  the  prejudice 
of  God's  righteousness  or  His  law,  the  divine  love  was 
supposed  to  reach  man  only  on  condition  that  his  guilt 
had  been  removed  through  a  representative  propitiation, 
Man  is  the  object  of  the  love  of  God,  not  directly  as  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  indirectly  through  the  great 
atonement  which,  indeed,  was  instituted  by  love  as  a 
means  through  which  love  itself  might  become  effective. 
Hence  Paul  says  that  God  commendeth  His  love  to  us 
in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us.* 

Paul,  however,  regarded  the  death  of  Christ  under 
another  aspect  than  the  one  just  considered,  and  saw  in  it  a 
means  of  the  moral-religious  renewal  of  believers  through 
their  mystical  union  with  the  head  of  the  race  in  his  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection,  f  The  death  of  Christ  was  an 
"  act  of  righteousness "  through  which  "  all  obtain  the 
gift  of  righteousness  unto  life."  \  Jesus  Christ  was  made 
to  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and 
redemption."  §  He  "gave  himself  for  our  sins,  that  he 
might  deliver  us  from  the  present  evil  world."  [  Paul 
reminds  the  Romans  that  in  having  been  baptized  into 
Christ  they  were  baptized  into  his  death.  Thus  were 

*  Rom.  v.  8. 

f  This  is  regarded  by  some  interpreters  of  Paul  as  the  chief  if  not  the 
sole  point  of  view  from  which  he  contemplated  the  death  of  Christ.  Weiz- 
sacker  appears  to  hold  the  former  view  (Das  apostal.  Zeitalter)  and  Matthew 
Arnold  the  latter  (St.  Paul  and  Protestantism).  Neither  of  these  opinions 
can,  however,  be  sustained  without  more  or  less  rationalizing  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Paul's  words.  Rightly  regarded  this  second  aspect  under  which 
Paul  views  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  logical  sequence  of  the  former.  The 
apostle  was  not  a  nineteenth  century  liberal  Christian,  that  he  should  have 
found  the  idea  of  propitiation  offensive. 

\  Rom.  v.  1 8.  §  i  Cor.  i.  30.  fl  Gal.  i.  4. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  199 

they  "  buried  "  with  him,  that  as  he  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  they  might  also  "  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Having 
been  made  completely  like  him  in  his  death,  they  will  be 
made  like  him  in  his  resurrection  also.  As  he  died  to  sin, 
but  lives  to  God,  so  they  should  regard  themselves  as 
dead  to  sin,  but  alive  to  God  through  him.  *  The  sig- 
nificance of  this  dying  of  Christ  and  of  men  in  him  as  the 
representative  of  the  race  is  set  forth  in  the  general  prop- 
osition that  "  He  that  has  died  has  been  set  free  from 
sin,"  f  that  is,  legally  he  is  released  from  all  its  claims 
and  consequences.  "  Sin  reigned  in  death, "^  and  he  who 
with  death  has  received  "  the  wages  of  sin  "  is  henceforth 
set  free  from  its  dominion.  This  doctrine  of  the  Jewish 
theology  is  applied  by  Paul  to  Christ  and  the  believers  in 
him,  in  order  to  show  that  the  former  by  his  death  as 
the  representative  of  the  race  had  borne  the  curse  of  sin, 
and  once  for  all  satisfied  its  claims  and  broken  its  power, 
and  that  the  latter  dying  with  him,  their  head,  were  with 
him  free  from  sin,  victorious,  subject  no  longer  to  its 
dominion,  no  longer  "  debtors  to  the  flesh."  §  The  bond- 
age to  sin  in  which  mankind  had  been  held  since  Adam, 
and  in  which  they  were  not  only  a  prey  to  death,  but 
subjects  of  the  fleshly  impulses  and  of  a  will  powerless  for 
good,  having  been  broken  by  the  great  sacrifice,  those 
who  through  baptism  had  entered  into  the  fellowship  of 
Christ's  death,  and  been  "  buried  with  him,"  were  free 
now  both  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  its  penalty  which  is 
death,||  and  from  slavery  to  it,  which  is  moral  and  spirit- 

*  Rom.  vi.  5-1 1. 

f  Rom.  vi.  7. 

\  Rom.  v.  21.  §  Rom.  viii.  12. 

I  Not  that  they  would  never  die,  but  that  death  could  have  no  power 
over  them,  since  if  the  spirit  of  Christ  dwelt  in  them,  He  who  raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead  would  give  life  to  their  mortal  bodies.  Rom.  viii.  n. 


200       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ual  incapability.  In  the  atonement  believers  were  morally 
quickened  and  invigorated.  Through  Christ's  death  and 
their  appropriation  of  it  in  baptism  there  has  been  effected 
a  transformation  of  their  life,  and  they  are  now  able  to 
comply  with  the  moral  requirements,  they  are  "  alive  from 
the  dead,"  and  having  been  made  free  from  sin  they  may 
be  the  bondmen  of  righteousness.*  The  bondage  of  the 
law  is  also  broken  ;  for  "  the  law  has  dominion  over  a  man 
only  as  long  as  he  lives."  Christ  was  "  under"  it  while 
he  lived  in  the  flesh,  but  its  claim  was  extinguished  in  his 
death.  Now  since  in  the  death  of  one  for  all,  all  died, 
Paul  says  to  his  brethren  that  they  were  also  "  slain  to 
the  law  through  the  body  of  Christ,"  that  they  "  might 
be  connected  with  another,  even  with  him  who  was  raised 
from  the  dead,"  that  they  "  might  bear  fruit  to  God."  f 
The  resurrection  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
death  of  Christ  in  the  doctrinal  system  of  Paul,  and  is  a 
factor  of  the  greatest  importance  in  his  conception  of  sal- 
vation. The  revelation  of  the  resurrected  Son  of  God  in 
him  was  the  great  fact  of  his  experience  from  an  appre- 
hension of  which  his  conversion  proceeded.  This  view 
denotes  one  of  the  distinctive  differences  between  his 
apprehension  of  Christianity  and  that  of  the  original 
apostles,  and  shows  one  of  the  aspects  of  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  gospel  which  his  original  genius  effected. 
They  proceeded  from  what  they  had  known  of  Jesus  as 
a  teacher.  He  took  his  departure  from  the  dead  and 
resurrected  Lord  of  glory,  and  refused  to  know  anything 
of  a  Christ  "according  to  the  flesh."  Not  as  a  Jewish 
teacher  or  a  Jewish  Messiah  did  he  conceive  of  Christ, 
but  as  the  archetypal  spiritual  man  who  in  dying  and  ris- 
ing from  the  dead  died  and  rose  for  Gentiles  as  well  as 

*  Rom.  viii.  13,    18.  f  Rom.  vii   4. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2O1 

for  Jews.  If  to  Paul  the  whole  earthly  mission  of  Christ 
finds  its  significance  and  its  culmination  in  the  death  on 
the  cross,  an  act  of  "  obedience  "  through  which  "  many 
will  be  made  righteous  "  and  by  which  "  sentence  of  con- 
demnation was  pronounced  on  sin  in  the  flesh,"  *  it  is 
through  his  resurrection  that  his  work  receives  its  authen- 
tication and  the  divine  seal.  Without  the  resurrection  and 
the  life  of  exaltation  which  followed  it,  all  that  preceded 
it  would  have  been  without  power  and  significance.  He 
41  was  delivered  up  on  account  of  our  trespasses,  and  raised 
from  the  dead  that  we  might  be  accepted  as  righteous."  f 
If  in  his  death  we  are  regarded  as  having  died  with  him, 
in  his  life  we  are  to  live  with  him,  J  since  believers  have 
in  his  resurrection  not  only  an  assurance  of  their  own,  § 
but  also  the  earnest  of  a  life  in  the  Spirit  in  this  present 
time  effected  through  his  new  life,  so  that  they  live  not 
of  themselves,  but  by  reason  of  the  glorified  Christ's  liv- 
ing in  them,  [  and  by  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  T 
which  he  has  and  communicates  to  them.  Through  his 
resurrection  he  is  appointed  "  with  power"  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,  and  exalted  to  be  the  "  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and 
the  living"  that  to  him  "  every  knee  should  bow  of  those 
who  are  in  heaven  and  those  on  the  earth  and  those  under 
the  earth."**  He  has  become  the  Lord  who  is  the  Spirit, 
"  the  Lord  of  glory  "  whose  body  is  a  heavenly  effulgence, 
a  "  body  of  glory. "ff  Death  has  no  longer  dominion  over 
him,  having  died  to  sin  he  lives  henceforth  to  God  and  for 
His  glory,  and  shall  reign  until  he  has  put  all  enemies 

*  Rom.  v.  19,  viii.  3.  f  Rom.  iv.  25. 

\  Rom.  vi.  4-7  ;  Gal.  ii.  20.  §  I  Cor.  xv.  12  ff. 

||  Gal.  ii.  20.  1"  Rom.  viii.  19  ;  i  Cor.  xii.  3. 

**  Rom.  i.  4,  xiv.  9  ;  Phil.  ii.  9  ff. 

ft  i  Cor.  ii.  8  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  17  ;  Phil.  iii.  21. 


2O2        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

under  his  feet,  death  last  of  all*  To  Paul  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  was  the  ground  of  men's  faith  in  his  saving 
work.  Hence  he  says:  "  If  Christ  hath  not  risen  your 
faith  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins,"  f  that  is,  without 
his  resurrection  his  death  were  unavailing  for  atonement 
and  justification,  and  those  who  have  believed  in  him  have 
cherished  a  faith  which  is  to  no  purpose.  \  If  he  were 
abandoned  of  God  in  his  death,  then  was  his  death  no 
atoning  sacrifice  for  sin.  They  did  not  in  fact  die  to  sin 
and  the  flesh  in  him,  if  he  were  not  raised  and  they  with 
him  to  "  newness  of  life."  Thus  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  conceived  as  supplementing,  completing,  and 
rendering  effective  his  death  to  sin.  It  was  for  the  sake 
of  man's  justification  on  condition  of  man's  faith  in  the 
atoning  significance  of  his  death,  and  this  faith  is  possible 
only  on  the  ground  of  his  resurrection.  But  Paul  sees  a 
further  efficiency  in  the  resurrection,  for  he  conceives  the 
hope  of  salvation  to  rest  not  alone  in  what  Christ  wrought 
for  men  in  his  death  and  resurrection  as  isolated  and  tem- 
porary facts,  but  also  in  the  assurance  that  the  resurrected 
one  still  lives  in  his  heavenly  state,  and,  as  the  Lord  who 

*  Rom.  vi.  10 ;  I  Cor.  xv.  25  ;  Phil  ii.  n.  With  all  the  exaltation  of 
Christ  to  a  position  of  dominion  and  glory  Paul  clearly  denotes  the  distinction 
between  him  and  the  Deity.  An  agent  of  God,  a  subordinate,  he  will  finally, 
when  all  things  have  been  put  under  him,  become  subject  to  Him  who  sub- 
dued all  things  to  him,  "  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,"  I  Cor.  xv.  28.  The 
words  :  6  cov  knl  itdvrcav  0«o5  EvXoyrjToS  (Rom.  ix.$)  may  in  themselves 
be  referred  to  God  or  to  Christ,  and  may  if  separated  from  the  preceding 
words,  be  read,  "  He  who  is  over  all,  God,  be  blessed,"  etc.,  or  if  taken  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  preceding  words  (Was  the  Christ),  "  who 
is  over  all,  God,  blessed,"  etc.  The  analogy  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  must 
furnish  the  decision.  But  Paul  nowhere  calls  Christ  God  in  any  sense. 
Tischendorf  places  a  period  between  these  words  and  the  foregoing,  and  thus 
makes  them  an  ascription  of  praise  to  God. 

f  i  Cor.  xv.  17.  \  Tti6ri^ 


THE   PA  ULINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  203 

is  the  Spirit,  "  life-giving  Spirit,"  dwells  in  the  believers 
as  an  animating  principle,  so  that  as  a  community  they 
may  be  regarded  as  the  "  body  "  of  Christ,  and  as  indi- 
vidual "  members  "  of  Christ.  In  their  life  in  him  they  are 
connected  with  the  Father  whose  love  is  assured  to  them 
in  and  through  him  who  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
making  "  intercession  "  for  them.*  Accordingly,  believers 
may  hope  that,  as  Christ  was  the  "  first-fruits  of  them  that 
have  fallen  asleep,"  those  of  them  who  had  died  will  be 
raised  at  his  coming  again,  those  of  them  who  remain 
alive  will  be  changed,  and  all,  bearing  the  image  of  his 
glorious  body,  will  in  fellowship  with  him  enter  into  a 
state  of  final  blessedness,  f 

5. JUSTIFICATION    BY    FAITH. 

The  justification  of  man  or  his  acceptance  as  righteous 
according  to  the  divine  standard,  that  is,  by  a  judgment 
of  God,  is  the  practical  end  of  the  Pauline  theology.  In 
this  result  the  work  of  Christ  through  his  death  and  resur- 
rection finds  its  temporal  culmination.  The  question  how 
that  union  of  man  with  God  which  is  expressed  by  the 
term  s'onship,  or  adoption  as  son,  and  a  mark  of  which  is 
the  indwelling  in  him  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  brought 

*  Rom.  viii.  34-39;  I  Cor.  vi.  15,  xii.  27.  "Who  also  intercedeth  for 
us"  (oS  ual  kvTvy%dt.v£i  -vitkp  iyj.<3v)y  Rom.  viii.  34.  In  the  idea  of  in- 
tercession appear  to  be  implied  the  necessity  and  the  possibility  of  favorably 
influencing  the  Deity  in  the  interest  of  men.  Intercession  is  ascribed  to 
"the  Spirit  "also  in  verses  26  and  27.  See  besides  Heb.  vii.  25,  "  Who 
ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them,"  and  I  John  ii.  I,  "  We  have  an 
advocate  with  the  Father  "  (-JtapdHXrjTov  7tpo$  TOV  Ttarepa).  The  doc- 
trine of  propitiation  is  doubtless  related  to  this  idea.  Yet  no  attempt  is 
made  by  Paul  or  by  the  two  other  writers  to  reconcile  the  fatherhood  of  God 
with  the  doctrine  that  He  should  need  to  be  interceded  with  for  His  children. 

f  i  Cor.  xv.  22,  51  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  13-18. 


204       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

about,  is  answered  negatively  by  Paul  in  the  fundamental 
proposition  of  his  system,  that  "  by  the  works  of  the  law 
no  man  is  justified,"  or  "accepted  as  righteous."  His 
theological  doctrine  has  its  roots  in  the  conception  of 
righteousness  which  he  derived  from  the  Jewish  religion  ; 
but  in  the  function  assigned  to  faith  it  stands  in  funda- 
mental opposition  to  that  conception  as  it  was  understood 
by  the  Jewish  teachers  in  general  and  by  Jesus  himself,  so 
that  he  may  be  said  to  have  transformed  the  religion  of 
his  nation  and  the  gospel  of  his  Master  by  a  bold  and 
radical  innovation.  This  innovation  did  not  consist,  in- 
deed, so  much  in  giving  a  new  meaning  to  righteousness 
considered  with  reference  to  the  divine  judgment  as  in  a 
new  conception  of  the  way  in  which  it  may  be  acquired. 
By  righteousness  f  the  apostle  means  the  right,  the  ade- 
quate relation  of  man  to  God.  While  it  is  a  subjective 
condition,  that  is,  a  state  of  the  man  who  holds  this  rela- 
tion, it  is  regarded  as  proceeding  from  God,  and  hence  is 
defined  as  the  righteousness  of  God.  J  The  Jewish  concep- 
tion of  the  righteousness  acceptable  to  God,  that  is,  attain- 
able by  the  works  of  the  law,§  was  declared  by  Paul  to  be 
impossible,  not,  indeed,  by  reason  of  any  imperfection  in  the 


*  6  arQpojtoS  ov  diHaiovrat  e£  epyoov  vofj.ov. 

•f-  8inaio(5i,v7j. 

\  diKocioGvrr}  Qeor,  rj  TOV  Qeov  Siuaiotivvr))  Rom.  i.  17,  iii.  21,  x.  3. 
See  Meyer  on  Rom.  i.  17,  Commentar,  4te  Aufl.  iv.  p.  56  f.  Baur  who 
in  his  Paulus  and  h's  Neutestamentl.  Theol.  held  the  genitive  QEOV  to  be  ob- 
jective and  the  phrase  to  have  the  sense,  "righteousness  determined  with 
reference  to  God,"  appears  to  have  abandoned  this  opinion  in  Theol.  Jahrb., 
1857,  p.  64,  under  the  influence  of  Holsten's  interpretation.  See  Holsten, 
Zum  Evangel,  des  Paulus,  etc.,  p.  408. 

§  By  the  law  (KO//OS)  Paul  evidently  meant  the  Mosaic  law.  This  was 
identical  in  his  thought  with  the  moral  law,  and  he  accordingly  does  not 
regard  the  heathen  as  avojuoi,  or  without  a  law,  but  as  a  law  to  themselves, 
having  what  the  law  required  written  in  their  hearts.  Rom.  ii.  14,  15. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2O$ 

law  itself,  which  he  pronounces  "  holy,  right,  and  good,"  * 
but,  as  has  already  been  shown,  because  of  the  weakness 
of  the  flesh.  Paul  accordingly  knows  no  righteousness 
but  that  through  faith.  For  him  the  gospel  is  to  every 
believer,  Jew  and  Greek,  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  ; 
for  therein  is  revealed  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God 
from  faith  to  faith, f  that  is,  a  righteousness  whose  essential 
principle,  whose  beginning  and  end  are  faith.  The  pri- 
mary meaning  of  this  word  faith,:];  which  holds  so  import- 
ant a  place  in  the  Pauline  system  of  salvation,  is  confidence 
in  the  revelations,  the  message,  and  the  promises  of  God, 
like  that  of  Abraham.  It  is  a  confidence  in  Him  who 
raised  Christ  from  the  dead  in  order  that  believers  might 
be  accepted  as  righteous.§  If  sometimes  Paul  speaks  of 
it  as  a  merely  intellectual  conviction  of  a  fact,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, that  God  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  he  does  not 
stop  at  this  point,  but  introduces  a  religious  element  of 
trust  and  an  affection  of  the  heart.  It  is  not  enough  to 
acknowledge  with  the  mouth  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  one 
must  believe  in  the  heart  or  with  the  entire  devotion  of 
the  inmost  being ;  and  he  expressly  says  that  "  with  the 
heart  man  believeth  so  as  to  obtain  righteousness."  |  While 
the  believer  is  conceived  as  in  part  passive,  as  acted  upon 
by  the  word  of  gospel-truth,  "  a  demonstration  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  power,"  and  illuminated  by  a  light  from  God  which 
shines  in  the  heart,  and  "  laid  hold  of  by  Christ,"  1"  yet 
faith  is  essentially  an  act  implying  freedom,  "  obedience 
from  the  heart,"  subjection  to  the  divine  plan  of  justifica- 
tion, a  laying  hold  of  Christ,  and  an  appropriation  of  the 
benefits  which  accrue  from  his  sacrifice.*  This  act  is  not 

*Rom.  vii.  12.  §  Rom.  iv.  24. 

f  Rom.  i.  16,  17.  ||  Rom.  x.  9,  10. 

\  TtrtnS.  ^  2  Cor.  iv.  6  ,  Phil.  iii.  12. 

**  Rom.  i.  5,  vi.  7,  x.  3  ;  Phil.  iii.  12. 


206       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

regarded,  however,  as  belonging  to  the  class  of  good  works 
by  which  righteousness  could  be  earned.  It  is  not  a  per- 
formance by  which  righteousness  could  be  acquired,  and 
to  which  merit  attached  as  to  "  works  of  the  law,"  but 
rather  a  condition  of  being  accepted  as  righteous  without 
boasting,  a  humble,  trusting  self-surrender  to  the  divine 
will  as  revealing  itself  in  grace  through  the  gospel  of  recon- 
ciliation. *  Man  is  powerless  to  achieve  righteousness 
under  the  law  by  his  own  act,  and  can  only  with  profound 
humility  cast  himself  upon  the  grace  of  God,  and  accept 
His  free  gift,  thankful  with  an  answering  love  for  the 
sacrifice  which  has  purchased  it  for  him  on  the  cross.f 

Since,  then,  there  is  no  ground  for  a  man's  boasting  in 
any  achievement  of  his  own  in  respect  to  righteousness, 
and  all  his  "  glory "  should  be  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  \ 
faith  in  Christ  has  in  the  system  of  Paul  a  distinctive 
and  prominent  place.  Hence  if  righteousness  is  from 
God  it  is  "  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ " ;  the  life  of  the 
believer  is  lived  through  faith  in  Christ ;  if  a  blessing  was 
promised,  it  was  through  faith  in  Jesus ;  if  believers  are 
sons  of  God,  they  are  such  through  faith  in  His  great  Son  ; 
and  if  a  man  have  righteousness,  it  is  not  his  own,  no 
impossible  righteousness  of  the  law,  but  that  which  "  is 
through  faith  in  Christ,  "  that  "  which  is  from  God  upon 
faith. "§  While  Jesus  generally  spoke  of  faith  in  himself 
as  a  belief  in  his  healing  powers,  |  and  the  original  apos- 
tles cherished  a  faith  in  him  which  was  connected  with  an 
eschatological  hope  of  his  second  coming,  the  faith  of 
Paul  in  Christ  was  a  new  conception  of  his  original  genius 

*Rom.  iii.  27,  iv.  4,  x.  4-10  ;  Phil.  iii.  4. 

fGal.  ii.  20  f,  iii.  22  ff ;  Phil.  iii.  18  ff.  \  Gal.  vi.  14. 

§  Rom.  iii.  22  ;  Gal.  ii.  16,  20,  26  ;  Phil.  iii.  9. 

|  See,  however,  a  Pauline  trait  in  Luke  vii.  50. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2O/ 

which  had  the  power  to  transform  all  that  it  touched. 
His  faith  in  Christ  was  not  a  belief  in  him  as  a  teacher 
and  an  exemplar,  for  of  these  aspects  of  his  life  Paul  took 
no  account,  but  a  feeling  of  grateful  and  loving  identifica- 
tion, of  mystical  union  and  fellowship  with  him  in  his 
death  and  resurrection.  Having  died  with  Christ,  the 
believer  is  regarded  as  belonging  in  this  union  with  Christ 
to  him  alone.  Dead  to  sin  in  this  union,  he  no  longer 
belongs  to  the  law  ;  the  old  relation  of  bondage  is  dis- 
solved, and  a  new  one  of  liberty  is  formed  in  the  death 
of  Christ.  He  was  slain  to  the  law  through  the  body  of 
Christ  that  he  might  be  connected  with  another,  even 
with  him  who  was  raised  from  the  dead.*  There  is  no 
more  for  him  the  fruitless  struggle  for  an  impossible 
righteousness  with  its  alternations  of  hope  and  despair, 
but  in  the  consciousness  of  freedom  and  the  joy  of  recon- 
ciliation with  God  he  feels  himself  to  be  a  "  new  creation." 
Having  "  put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  has  taken  into 
his  heart  with  love  the  ideal,  and  realizes  the  power,  of  the 
life  of  thesonship  of  God.  This  beautiful  mysticism  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  fine  words :  "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ, 
and  no  longer  do  I  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me,  and  the  life 
which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  I  live  in  faith  in  the  Son  of 
God  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me."  f  His  life 
in  faith  in  Christ  and  Christ's  living  in  him  are  doubtless 
to  Paul  two  expressions  for  the  same  idea,  his  idea  of 
what  faith  in  Christ  was  in  his  experience — a  mystical  fel- 
lowship with  him,  a  loving  devotion  in  a  unity  of  life  with 
him.  To  have  faith  in  Christ  is  to  be  in  him.  He  is  a 
Christian  who  is  "  in  Christ,"  or  who  has  Christ  living  in 
him.  Hence  the  injunction  :  "  Try  yourselves,  whether 
ye  are  in  the  faith,"  and  the  question :  "  Know  ye  not 

*  Rom.  vii.  4.  f  Gal.  ii.  20. 


2O8        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

your  own  selves  that  Christ  Jesus  is  in  you  ?  "  Faith  in 
Christ  is  union  with  him,  membership :  "  He  that  is  con- 
nected with  the  Lord  is  one  spirit  with  him."f 

This  union  and  fellowship  with  Christ  through  faith  are 
regarded  by  Paul  as  bringing  the  believer  into  the  rela- 
tion of  sonship  with  God — the  hignest  relation  that  man 
can  attain.  Accordingly  the  apostle  says  :  "  Ye  are  all  sons 
of  God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  for  as  many  of  you 
as  were  baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ."  \  Hav- 
ing the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  conscious  of  the  spirit  of 
adoption  as  a  son  of  God.§  Set  free  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  he  is  no  longer  a  "  bond-servant,"  but  a  son,  and 
if  a  son,  then  an  heir.||  But  the  theological  genius  of 
Paul  required  a  formula  for  this  spiritual  condition,  and 
he  found  it  in  the  Jewish  theology  and  the  terminology 
of  the  Septuagint.  A  divine  declaration  or  act  of  judg- 
ment is  assumed  to  be  pronounced  in  order  to  set  the 
seal  of  God  upon  this  new  creation  and  give  it  recognition 
and  validity  before  the  court  of  heaven.  The  condition 
is  said  accordingly  to  be  one  of  "  justification,"  and  the 
subject  is  supposed  to  be  "  accepted  as  righteous "  or 
"justified,"^  that  is,  acquitted  or  declared  to  be  just. 
That  the  meaning  is  not  "  to  make  or  render  righteous" 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  term  is  applied  to  God 
in  the  words  :  "  That  Thou  mayst  be  justified  in  Thy 
words,"  etc.,**  that  is,  be  acknowledged  as  just  in  Thy 
judgments.  This  is  also  the  sense  in  the  passage  in 
which  the  term  is  used  of  those  who  by  reason  of  obedi- 
ence are  already  righteous :  "  The  doers  of  the  law  will 
be  accounted  righteous."  ff  The  application  of  the  term 

*  2  Cor.  xiii.  5.  \  i  Cor.  vi.  17.  \  Gal.  iii.  26. 

§  Ttvf.vfj.cc.  vioftetiiaS,  Rom.  viii.  15.  ||  Gal.  iv.  7. 


5,  dixaiovtffJai.  **  Rom.  iii.  4. 

ft  diH<xtK)^6ovT(nt  Rom.  ii.  13. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2CX) 

to  believers  is  shown  by  the  formulas,  "  accept  as  right- 
eous," "  faith  is  accounted  as  righteousness,"  and,  "  not 
to  charge  with  sin."*  It  is  evident 'that  the  ground  on 
which  the  judgment  of  justification  rests  is  not  contained 
in  the  word  itself,  since  it  is  applied  to  the  case  of  one 
who  has  fulfilled  the  law  and  to  that  of  one  who  has  only 
faith  to  plead.  To  Paul  the  former  sort  of  righteousness, 
though  an  abstract  possibility,  had  no  existence  in  fact  on 
account  of  the  fleshly  nature  of  man  which  held  him  in 
bondage  to  sin.  Accordingly,  he  recognized  no  justifica- 
tion on  the  ground  of  merit  acquired  by  keeping  the  law, 
but  laid  the  whole  stress  upon  that  which  by  the  grace  of 
God  was  a  free  gift.f  The  basis  of  his  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication was,  then,  in  his  doctrine  of  salvation,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  words :  "I  do  not  set  aside  the  grace  of 
God  ;  for  if  righteousness  come  through  the  law  then  did 
Christ  die  for  naught."  ^  To  him  the  death  of  Christ 
were  futile  if  it  was  not  an  act  of  divine  grace  which 
opened  to  man  a  new  way  of  righteousness  without  refer- 
ence to  the  works  of  the  law.  The  divine  act  or  decree 
of  justification  rests  primarily  upon  the  free  mercy  cf  God, 
since  the  promised  salvation  is  bestowed  not  for  merit, 
but  despite  the  guilt  of  man,  as  a  gift  of  grace.§  Sec- 
ondarily, justification  is  grounded  "  objectively  in  the  aton- 
ing death  of  Christ  and  subjectively  in  the  faith  of  man."  || 
Because  the  curse  of  the  law  was  borne  in  the  great  sacri- 
fice on  the  cross,  God  may  declare  the  sinner  free  of 
guilt  without  prejudice  to  His  own  righteousness.  Since 
he  that  has  died  is  freed  from  sin,  the  sin  of  the  world 
was  atoned  for  in  the  death  of  the  representative  of  man- 

*  diKaiovvra,  hoyi^erai  Tti6n<i  sit  dinaiotivvrfv ,  Rom.  iv.  4,  5. 
f  Rom.  iii.  24,  iv.  4.  \  Gal.  ii.  21. 

§  Gal.  iii.;  Rom.  iv.,  v.  15-21,  xi.  30  ff. 
|  Rom.  v.  1,9. 


210       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

kind,  the  man  from  heaven,  and  the  justification  of  the 
individual  is  nothing  else  than  the  appropriation  by  each 
of  that  universal  judgment  of  justification  which  was  con- 
ditionally declared  for  every  one.  The  condition  is  the 
acceptance  through  -faith  of  that  general  atonement  for 
himself,  being  "  made  completely  like  him  [Christ]  in  his 
death  "  and  "  in  his  resurrection  also."  * 

In  this  doctrine  there  is  manifestly  not  merely  a  bare 
"  imputation  "  of  the  "  merits  "  of  Christ  or  of  his  right- 
eousness to  the  sinner.  It  is  only  by  a  perversion  of  Paul's 
teaching  that  this  idea  has  been  derived  from  it.  The 
believer  is  not  "  accepted  as  righteous  "  only  on  account 
of  the  merits  or  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  also  by 
reason  of  the  faith  with  which  he  has  personally  accepted 
the  atonement.  This  faith  is  not,  however,  conceived,  as 
has  already  been  remarked,  to  be  of  the  nature  of  an  act  of 
obedience  to  the  law  to  which  merit  attaches  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  applied  to  "  works,"  else  justification  through 
faith  would  not  be  an  act  of  grace,  "  a  free  gift,"  but  a 
judgment  pronounced  in  accordance  with  desert,  which 
would  have  no  connection  with  the  atoning  work  of 
Christ.  It  might,  indeed,  appear  on  a  superficial  view 
that  if  u  faith  is  accounted  as  righteousness  "  a  man  would 
be  regarded  as  having  something  which  he  does  not  really 
have,  and  that  there  would  be  an  incongruity  between  the 
subject  of  whom  righteousness  is  affirmed  and  the  predi- 
cate, righteous,  as  if  one  should  say,  "  James,  a  wicked 
man,  is  accounted  righteous  because  of  his  faith."  The 
moral-religious  consciousness  could  not  but  take  offence 
at  this  as  a  fictitious  sort  "of  righteousness.  But  in  his 
conception  of  justification  by  faith  Paul  did  not  abandon 
the  moral  idea  that  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  righteousness 

*  2  Cor.  v.  15  ;   Rom.  vi.  5  ;  Phil.  iii.  10. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  211 

which  is  "  accounted  as  a  matter  of  debt."  *  On  the  con- 
trary he  was  much  in  earnest  about  the  moral  factor  in 
his  theory  of  justification  by  faith,  and  having  abandoned 
the  law  of  works,  he  introduced  as  an  essential  factor 
another  "  law,"  that  of  "  the  Spirit  of  life."  f  "The  law 
of  the  Spirit  of  life  set  me  free,"  he  says,  "  in  Christ  Jesus 
from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.  "^  The  Spirit  is  the  deter- 
mining principle  of  life  for  the  believer  in  Christ,  since  as 
such  he  can  have  in  him  alone  his  spiritual  life.  The 
Spirit  is,  indeed,  received  by  the  preaching  of  faith,  §  but 
faith  becomes  for  the  believer  a  living  reality  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Spirit  by  which  the  process  of  justification  is 
alone  completed.  God  who  is  "  the  justifier  of  him  who 
had  faith  "  does  not  then,  according  to  Paul,  "  account  " 
as  an  imaginary  righteousness  the  faith  of  the  "  ungodly  " 
man,  and  arbitrarily  "  declare  "  him  to  be  righteous  while 
in  fact  he  remains  what  he  was  before,  but  the  justifica- 
tion is  a  real  one,  because  in  "  the  law  of  the  spirit  of 
life,"  in  the  Spirit  as  a  principle  actually  working  in  him, 
he  is  in  truth  put  into  a  relation  with  God  which  corre- 
sponds with  the  moral  ideal.  He  has  been  "  clothed  with 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Unable  to  attain  a  righteousness 
of  his  own,  that  is,  to  earn  it  by  the  works  of  the  moral 
law,  he  has  had  bestowed  upon  him  "  the  righteousness 
which  is  from  God  "  !|  as  a  gracious  gift  from  the  Source 
of  life. 

It  cannot  but  be  conceded  that  Paul's  statement  of  his 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  in  a  high  degree  extreme 
and  abstract.  It  appears  to  proceed  from  the  point  of  view 


*  Hard  oepeityjua,  Rom.  iv.  4. 

f  rt'/zo£  rov  TtvevjuaroS  £07775. 

J  Rom.  viii.  2.  §  Gal.  iii.  2. 

||  SiKcaotivvr)  Qsov  as  opposed  to  one's  own  (Idia)  righteousness. 


212        THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  the  opposition  of  Judaism  and  his  apprehension  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  it  is  not  surprising  that  his  successors  in  the 
Christian  Church  during  the  first  two  centuries  do  not 
appear  to  have  sympathized  warmly  with  his  radical  ap- 
prehension of  the  matter.  That  a  mediating  tendency 
early  manifested  itself  only  shows  the  natural  reaction  of 
the  human  mind  against  extreme  positions  vehemently 
maintained.  The  Epistle  of  James  is  manifestly  an 
attempt  to  soften  the  harshness  of  the  Pauline  doctrine 
if  not  to  substitute  another  in  its  place,  and  it  is  worthy 
of  note  that  even  those  early  writings  which  show  a  favor- 
able disposition  towards  Paul's  views,  as  the  first  Epistle 
of  Peter  and  Hebrews,  seek  to  avoid  the  contested  word 
"  justify,"  and  emphasize  the  virtuous  life  and  moral  per- 
fection. The  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  does  not 
besides  appear  to  be  recognized  in  the  Johannine 
writings.*  It  may  be  questioned  whether  Paul  is  just  to 
Judaism  on  the  one  hand  and  to  Christianity  on  the  other 
when  he  distinguishes  them  so  sharply  as  representing  ex- 
clusively the  former  righteousness  by  the  works  of  the  law 
and  the  latter  righteousness  by  faith,  and  whether  he  cor- 
rectly sets  forth  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
religion  of  Jesus,  or  presents  a  one-sided  apprehension  of 
both.  Since  he  does  not  profess  to  have  had  a  knowledge 
of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  in  detail,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  if  he  has  not  correctly  represented  them.  But  it  cannot 
but  be  surprising  that  he  represents  the  law  as  having  for 
its  sole  function  to  punish  and  condemn.  Reading  Paul's 
arraignment  of  the  law,  one  would  think  that  under  the 
Old-Testament  economy  the  attainment  of  righteousness 

*  In   i   John  ii.   29  and  iii.    10  the  doing  of   righteousness  is  expressly 
emphasized:  ita$  6  Ttoioav  TTJV  SiKaioGvvrjv  el-  avrov 
and  Tea?  6  nr)  TtoiK)v  dinaiotivvrjv  OVH  Etinv  ex  rov  Bsov. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  213 

was  not  possible,  that  man  was  doomed  to  a  fruitless 
struggle  with  the  flesh,  and  that  he  was  helpless  under 
the  condemnation  of  the  law,  groping  in  the  darkness  of 
despair  without  a  gleam  of  grace.  Yet  it  may  very  well 
be  questioned  whether  in  fact  there  have  been  two  great 
world-periods,  in  one  of  which  under  the  "  first-man  "  all 
men  were  hopelessly  under  the  curse  of  the  law,  despite 
their  good  will  and  good  works,  and  in  the  other  are  "  ac- 
cepted as  righteous  "  through  faith  by  reason  of  the  obedi- 
ence of  "  the  man  from  heaven.  "  Who  would  undertake 
to  maintain  with  the  Old  Testament  before  him  that  its 
moral  law  was  given  on  the  presumption  that  obedience 
to  it  was  impossible  and  righteousness  a  fiction,  that  its 
religion  was  a  bare  legalism  which  took  no  account  of 
man's  incomplete  obedience,  did  not  recognize  the  virtue 
of  a  good  will  and  a  right  disposition,  and  had  no  place 
for  mercy  and  forgiveness  ?  On  the  contrary,  according 
to  its  teaching,  the  divine  requirements  are  satisfied  if  a 
man  "  do  justly  and  love  mercy  and  walk  humbly  with 
his  God,  "  and  the  divine  helpfulness  stoops  to  "  create  " 
in  men  a  "  new  heart "  and  a  "  right  spirit."  The  idea 
that  the  divine  forgiveness  and  grace  and  the  communica- 
tion of  the  divine  Spirit  to  men  are  conditioned  on  "the 
obedience  of  one  man  "  appears  to  be  an  addition  made 
by  Paul  to  the  Old-Testament  religion — an  addition  which 
became  a  logical  necessity  from  his  too  abstract  concep- 
tion of  the  law.  On  the  other  hand,  his  conception  of 
faith  has  a  certain  hardness  and  inflexibility,  which  are 
apparent  when  an  application  of  it  is  made  to  actual  life. 
He  appears  himself  sometimes  to  have  lost  sight  of  it, 
and  thus  to  have  left  a  problem  which  is  not  easily  solved. 
We  seem  to  hear  words  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  the 
ancient  lawgivers  and  prophets  in  the  declaration  that 


214        THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

God  *'  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works  "; 
that  "  tribulation  and  distress  will  be  upon  every  soul  of 
man  whose  works  are  evil,  "  but  "  glory,  honor,  and  peace 
upon  every  man  whose  works  are  good  "  ;  that  "  the  doers 
of  the  law  will  be  accounted  righteous  "  ;  and  that  "  we 
must  all  be  made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of 
Christ,  that  each  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his 
body.  "*  These  words  appear  to  have  been  written  by 
Paul  in  entire  unconsciousness  of  any  conflict  between 
them  and  his  doctrine  of  faith.  But  if  the  possession  or 
the  absence  of  faith  determines  a  man's  righteousness  or 
unrighteousness  in  the  divine  judgment,  and  men  are  to 
be  judged  according  to  their  "  works, "  how  can  faith 
be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  a  "  work.  "  If  only  the 
"  doers  "  of  the  law  are  to  be  accounted  righteous,  then 
must  not  the  act  of  faith  be  a  doing  of  the  law,  and  does 
not  the  law  stand  after  all  ?  Again,  it  has  been  said  that 
the  Pauline  doctrine  of  faith  does  not  meet  all  the  require- 
ments of  practical  life,  since  it  fails  to  answer  the  question 
how  the  believer's  transgressions  subsequent  to  his  accep- 
tance as  righteous  through  faith  are  to  be  disposed  of. 
It  is  evident  that  Paul  in  elaborating  his  doctrine  of 
righteousness  by  faith  did  not  have  these  questions  in 
mind,  but  was  thinking  only  of  the  opposition  of  Judaism 
and  a  conception  of  Christianity  founded  on  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  He  had  no  occasion  to  at- 
tempt the  reconciliation  of  positions  which'  did  not  per- 
haps appear  incongruous  to  him  in  whom  "  the  two  souls, 
that  of  a  Pharisee  and  that  of  an  apostle,  struggled  with 
each  other.  " 

It  fares  no  better  so  far  as  logical  consistency  is  con- 
cerned with  the  relation  of  faith  and  predestination.  The 

*  Rom.  ii.  5-11;  2  Cor.  v.  10.     See  also  I  Cor.  iii.  13, 14,  ix.  17  ;  Gal.  vi.  7. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  21$ 

whole  doctrine  of  faith  rests  upon  the  presumption  of 
man's  free  choice  and  self-determination,  so  that  whoever 
will  may  appropriate  the  free  gift  offered  in  the  atone- 
ment  of  Christ.  Yet  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  Paul 
lays  down  the  doctrine  that  God  without  regard  to  man's 
act  and  by  a  pure  purpose  of  election  chose  Jacob  and 
rejected  Esau  "  before  the  children  were  born  or  had  done 
anything  good  or  evil,  to  the  end  that  His  purpose,  ac- 
cording to  election,  might  stand,  not  depending  on  works, 
but  on  the  will  of  Him  who  calleth  "  ;  and  then  he  pro- 
ceeds to  prove  from  the  Old  Testament  that  God's  com- 
passion depends  on  His  own  will,  man's  act  being  of  no 
importance  in  the  case,  since  "  it  dependeth  not  on  him 
who  willeth  nor  on  him  who  runneth,  but  on  God  who 
showeth  mercy.  "  *  Accordingly,  Pharaoh  was  raised  up 
for  the  "very  purpose  "  that  God  might  "  show  forth  His 
power  in  him  "  ;  and  the  apostle  draws  thence  the  con- 
clusion that  God  "  hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will,  and 
hardeneth  whom  He  will,  "  and  has  "  the  right,  "  like  the 
potter,  "  to  make  of  the  same  lump  of  clay  one  vessel  for 
an  honorable  use  and  another  for  a  dishonorable,  "f  The 
question,  however,  how  God  can  require  a  man  to  be  other 
than  he  is,  since  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  be  other 
than  God  has  predetermined  him  to  be,  is.  excluded  by 
Paul  as  an  impertinence  of  human  reason.  If  God  has 
made  of  the  Jew  a  "  vessel  of  wrath,"  to  make  known 
His  power,  let  the  Jew  not  question  the  Almighty,  but  be 
thankful  that,  a  vessel  "  fitted  for  destruction, "  he  has 
been  "  endured  with  patience "  so  long.  Yet  with  the 
most  illogical  naivetd  he  declares  in  the  same  chapter  that 

*  Rom.  ix.  11-17. 

f  This  comparison   was  perhaps  suggested  by  a  passage  in  the  book  of 
Wisdom,  xv.  7. 


2l6       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Israel  did  not  attain  to  a  law  of  righteousness  '*  because 
they  did  not  strive  for  it  by  faith,  "  and  in  the  following 
chapter  he  lays  down  in  absolute  terms  the  law  of  liberty 
to  the  effect  that  "  every  one  that  believeth  may  obtain 
righteousness.  "  It  is  evident,  however,  that  Paul  did  not 
intend  to  establish  an  argument  for  predestination  in  refer- 
ence to  men  in  general,  but  that  in  the  exigency  of  his 
polemic  against  the  claims  of  the  Jews  to  be  the  chosen 
people  of  God  he  gave  excessive  prominence  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  sovereignty  only  to  return  immediately 
to  his  great  principle  of  faith,  leaving  the  two  propositions 
over  against  each  other  without  metaphysical  reconcilia- 
tion.* 

6. — THE    FUTURE. 

Paul  did  not  conceive  the  work  of  Christ  to  be  con- 
summated in  the  temporal  deliverance  of  believers  from 
the  bondage  of  sin  and  the  bestowal  upon  them  of  the 
divine  righteousness  through  faith.  The  economy  of 
Christian  redemption,  whose  head  was  the  man  from 
heaven  triumphant  over  the  grave,  included  a  victory 
won  from  the  powers  of  the  underworld,  the  subjection 
of  the  "  enemies  "  of  the  Christ,  and  an  unbroken  union 
of  believers  with  him.  It  was  a  cardinal  principle  in  the 
Pauline  theology  that  they  who  had  received  the  Spirit 
had  in  this  endowment  an  earnest  of  the  "  redemption  " 
of  their  "  bodies,"  since,  "  if  Jesus  died  and  rose  again, 
then  will  God  through  Jesus  bring  again  with  him  those 

*  Philo  also  held  that  men's  virtues  are  a  gift  of  God,  forbade  them  to 
ascribe  goodness  to  themselves,  and  wrote  of  a  "  grace  "  which  chose  its  in- 
struments from  birth  ;  yet  it  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  him  to  renounce 
the  doctrine  of  moral  accountability.  See  Zeller,  Phil,  der  Griechen,  iii.  p. 
651,  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1854,  pp.  259  ff. 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2 1/ 

who  have  fallen  asleep." '  The  beginning  of  the  great 
consummation  was  the  second  coming  of  Christ  from 
heaven  in  person  for  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom. 
When  he  should  "  descend  "  "  with  a  loud  summons,  with 
the  voice  of  an  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God," 
*'  the  dead  in  Christ  "  would  rise  first.  Then  those  who 
should  be  living,  among  whom  Paul  evidently  expected 
to  be  himself  when  he  wrote  I  Corinthians  and  I  Thessa- 
lonians,  would  be  "  changed,"  that  is,  their  earthly,  ma- 
terial bodies  would  be  transformed  into  a  higher  order  of 
corporeity  corresponding  to  the  resurrection  body,  which 
would  be  conformed  to  the  glorious  body  of  Christ.f  Of 

*  Rom.  viii.  n,  23  ;  I  Thess.  iv.  14. 

f  i  Cor.  xv.  51  ff  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  13  ff  ;  Phil.  iii.  21.  It  is  not  entirely 
clear  what  relation  Paul  conceived  the  new  spiritual  body  to  hold  to  the 
body  of  flesh,  and  how  and  when  believers  were  to  be  clothed  with  this 
garment  of  "glory."  The  indispensable  condition  of  its  bestowal  appears 
to  be  the  possession  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  indwelling  of  Christ,  according  to 
Rom.  viii.  10  f.  Here  he  tells  the  believers  that  if  Christ  be  in  them,  their 
bodies  though  dead  (subject  to  death),  will  receive  life  through  Him  who 
raised  Jesus  from  the  dead,  on  account  of  the  indwelling  of  His  Spirit,  or, 
according  to  another  reading,  through  His  Spirit  dwelling  in  them.  Al- 
though a  special  exercise  of  the  divine  power  as  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
appears  to  be  implied  here,  this  passage  may  perhaps  be  interpreted  with- 
out violence  so  as  to  bring  it  into  accord  with  i  Cor.  xv.  35  ff,  where  the 
new  body  is  represented  as  being  formed  from  the  old,  as  the  stalk  grows 
from  the  grain  which,  sown  in  the  ground,  "  dies  "  as  a  condition  of  being 
"  brought  to  life."  In  the  latter  passage  the  indwelling  of  Christ  is  evi- 
dently implied  as  the  condition  on  which  the  personality  survives  the  death 
of  the  body.  But  elsewhere  Paul  speaks  of  the  new  body  as  a  "  building 
provided  by  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  everlasting  in  the  heavens," 
and  of  "  loaging  to  be  clothed  upon  with  our  habitation  which  is  from 
heaven"  (2  Cor.  v.  1-3).  He  who  should  be  thus  "clothed  upon"  would 
not  be  found  "  naked,"  i.  e.,  would  not  be  a  bodiless  spirit  in  the  under- 
world. When  Paul  wrote  this  passage  he  was  probably  thinking  of  a 
transformation  of  the  earthly  body  into  "the  body  of  glory"  without  the 
intervention  of  death,  like  that  which  the  believers  who  should  survive  the 


218        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

an  intermediate  state  Paul  formulated  no  doctrine,  al- 
though such  a  state  is  evidently  implied,  in  accordance 
with  the  current  Jewish  belief,  in  the  resurrection  at  the 
Parousia  of  those  who  had  "  fallen  asleep."  Those  would 
not,  of  course,  descend  to  the  underworld  who  survived 
the  coming  of  Christ  in  glory.  There  are,  however,  indi- 
cations in  later  Epistles  that  he  held  the  doctrine  of  an 
immediate  entrance  at  death  upon  the  heavenly  life,  and 
perhaps  thought  that  he  would  not  live  until  the  time  of 
the  Parousia.  He  speaks  of  the  celestial  body  as  a  "  house 
not  made  with  hands,  everlasting,  in  the  heavens,"  of 
longing  "  to  be  clothed  upon  with  our  habitation  which  is 
from  heaven,"  and  of  being  well  "  pleased  rather  to  be 
absent  from  the  body  and  to  be  at  home  with  the  Lord."  * 
Again  he  writes  to  the  Philippians  of  his  "  desire  to  de- 
part and  to  be  with  Christ."  f  This  idea  of  "  being  at 
home  with  the  Lord,"  or  Christ,  immediately  after  death 
evidently  excludes  a  tarrying  of  the  spirit  in  the  under- 
world and  a  resurrection.  Hence  the  agreement  of  this 
phase  of  the  apostle's  eschatology  with  the  earlier  one  is 
hardly  to  be  maintained,  unless  with  Meyer  we  assume 
that  he  had  in  mind  in  the  passages  in  question  only  him- 
self and  his  possible  death  by  martyrdom,  in  which  case 
he  might  have  believed,  in  accordance  with  a  notion  of 
his  age  in  reference  to  martyrs,  that  he  would  pass  im- 

Parousia  would  experience  (i  Cor.  xv.  52).  The  thought  is  in  accord  with  a 
spiritual  Hellenism  rather  than  with  Jewish  apocalyptic,  and  in  expressing 
it  Paul  laid  the  foundation  for  a  hope  of  believers  in  the  future  which  was 
independent  of  the  second  advent  and  a  resurrection.  He  separated  Chris- 
tianity from  Judaism  and  gave  it  to  the  world.  He  attempted  no  reconcilia- 
tion of  the  two  points  of  view,  and  thus  set  an  example  which  his  interpreters 
will  do  well  to  follow. 

*  2  Cor.  v.  1-9. 

f  Phil.  i.  23. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2\g 

mediately  into  the  heavenly  state.  This  assumption  is, 
however,  entirely  gratuitous.  It  is  evident  in  any  case 
that  the  resurrection  out  of  an  intermediate  state  has 
scarcely  standing  in  the  Pauline  system,  and  may  be  re- 
garded as  hardly  more  than  an  empty  term.  Since  the 
dead  are  raised  "  incorruptible,"  it  is  not  the  old  body 
which  comes  up,  and  the  uniting  of  souls  which  are  called 
from  hades  with  a  spiritual  body  is  a  resurrection  only  in 
the  sense  that  the  immortal  part  is  supposed  to  rise  out 
of  the  underworld.  The  supposition  does  not  seem  im- 
probable, then,  that  Paul,  having  abandoned  the  materi- 
alistic Jewish  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
was  led  at  length  by  the  force  of  his  logic  to  abandon  the 
idea  of  the  underworld  in  connection  with  a  resurrection 
and  to  hold  that  immediately  after  death  the  believer's 
soul  is  "  clothed  upon  "  with  the  new  habitation  which  is 
"  everlasting,  in  the  heavens,"  although  at  one  time  he 
evidently  believed  in  a  rising  of  the  "  dead  in  Christ  "  at 
the  Parousia,  in  the  sense  probably  that  they  would  then 
first  be  united  with  the  spiritual  heavenly  body. 

This  spiritual  view  of  the  resurrection,*  which  stands  in 
such  striking  contrast  with  the  popular  Jewish  materialism, 
has  important  consequences  in  relation  to  the  extent  of 
the  great  transformation  of  the  dead  and  the  living  at  the 
Parousia.  If  the  question,  who  of  the  dead  and  the  living 
were  believed  by  Paul  to  be  destined  to  receive  the  spirit- 

*  It  has  been  said,  however,  that  Paul  does  not  always  maintain  the 
purely  spiritual  view,  but  sometimes  approaches  a  lower,  venal  apprehension 
of  the  relation  of  the  resurrection  to  conduct.  Why  should  we  expose  our- 
selves to  perils,  why  fight  with  beasts  at  Ephesus,  if  there  is  no  resurrection  ? 
he  asks.  If  the  dead  rise  not,  let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die,  I 
Cor.  xv.  30-33.  But  see  Rom.  xii.  I  ;  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15  ;  Gal.  ii.  20.  The 
Jewish  and  Christian  points  of  view  thus  sometimes  appear  in  an  opposition 
which  he  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  reconcile. 


220       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ual  heavenly  body  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  that  is, 
to  be  endowed  with  the  incorruptible  or  immortal  life,  be 
answered  in  logical  accordance  with  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  his  teaching,  the  answer  must  unquestionably 
be  that  this  boon  was  conceived  to  be  reserved  for  believers 
only.  For  it  is  incontestable  that  Paul  regarded  the  Spirit 
as  the  principle  not  alone  of  the  ethical-religious  life,  but 
also  of  the  life  from  the  dead.  Even  if  Christ  be  in  you, 
he  says  to  the  Romans,  the  body  is  dead,  that  is  subject 
to  death,  because  of  sin  ;  but  if  the  Spirit  of  Him  who 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  He  who 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  will  also  give  life  to  your 
mortal  bodies.  *  Accordingly,  the  assurance  that  believers 
will  be  "  clothed  upon  "  with  the  spiritual  heavenly  body, 
and  that  for  them  mortality  will  be  "  swallowed  up  by 
life  "  is  found  in  their  possession  of  the  Spirit  which  is 
given  them  as  a  pledge  f  of  this  consummation.  Paul's 
application  to  Christ  of  the  Hellenistic  idea  of  the  arche- 
typal spiritual  man  or  the  man  from  heaven  is  of  import- 
ance in  this  relation.  As  through  the  first  or  earthy  man 
came  death,  so  through  the  second  or  spiritual  man  came 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;  and  "  if  by  one  trespass 
death  reigned  through  one  man,  much*more  will  they  who 
receive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness reign  in  life  through  the  one  man,  Christ  Jesus."  % 
Here  the  reception  of  grace  and  righteousness,  that  is,  the 
entrance  into  the  condition  of  belief  in  Christ,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  condition  of  sharing  in  the  Messianic  reign, 
of  becoming  "  heirs  "  with  Christ ;  and  since  flesh  and 
blood  could  not  "  inherit  "  this  kingdom,  the  transforma- 

*  Rom.  viii.  10  f. 

^dfipafiojy,  2  Cor.  v.  4,  5. 

$  i  Cor.  xv.  20  ;  Rom.  v.  17.     * 


THE  PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  221 

tion  or  clothing  upon  with  spiritual  bodies  at  the  Parousia 
is  to  be  the  happy  fortune  of  those  who  living  or  dead  had 
previously  become  "  members  "  of  the  resurrected  spiritual 
head  of  mankind.  For  Paul  Christ  was  "  the  first  fruits  " 
of  the  resurrection,  the  first  in  "  order "  in  this  great 
spiritual  transformation  and  victory  over  death.  Next  in 
order  were  to  be  those  who  should  be  Christ's  at  his 
coming,  that  is,  the  Christians.*  It  is  evident  that  Paul's 
argument  does  not  proceed  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
as  a  man  like  other  men  to  the  conclusion  that  because  he, 
one  merely  human  being,  was  raised  from  the  dead,  there- 
fore all  men  will  be  raised,  or  that  all  are  naturally  im- 
mortal. A  conception  so  tame  could  have  found  no  place 
in  his  mystical  thought.  Rather  since  through  their  con- 
nection with  the  first  or  earthy  man  death  came  upon  all 
men  only  in  that  all  sinned,  so  through  the  second  or 
spiritual  man  life  comes  through  to  all  only  in  that  they 
believe,  and  those  alone  have  the  "  pledge  "  of  the  resur- 
rection who  are  "  in  Christ,"  that  is,  are  joined  with  him  by 
faith  in  a  mystical  union. 

That  such  was  Paul's  thought  regarding  the  extent  of 
the  transformation  of  the  living  and  dead  at  the  Parousia 
cannot  be  successfully  disputed.  'The  dead  "  in  Christ," 
those  who  are  "  Christ's,"  will  at  his  coming  be  called 
forth  from  the  realms  of  death  and  clothed  upon  with 
spiritual  incorruptible  bodies.  As  to  the  living  there  is  no 
general  statement,  but  he  evidently  intended  to  include 
only  believers  in  the  number  of  those  who  should  be  trans- 
formed. "  We  who  are  living,  we  who  are  left,  shall  be 
changed  "  can  only  refer  to  the  living  Christians.  Nothing 
could  be  more  incongruous  with  Paul's  whole  system  of 
thought  than  the  supposition  that  the  dead  believers  would 

*  i  Cor.  xv.  23  ;  cf.  Gal.  v.  24  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  16. 


222         THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

be  raised  at  the  Parousia,  and  all  living  men,  good,  bad, 
and  indifferent,  be  "  changed  "  suddenly,  arbitrarily,  into 
the  spiritual  and  bodily  likeness  of  Christ.  This  would 
have  been  unthinkable  to  Paul,  because  to  him  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit  was  the  pledge  of  the  bodily  trans- 
formation into  an  incorruptible  state,  and  the  Spirit  was 
given  only  to  those  who  had  accepted  Christ  by  faith. 
The  question,  what  he  thought  was  to  become  of  the  in- 
numerable dead  who  had  not  believed  in  Christ  and  of  the 
millions  of  living  unbelievers,  is  not  easily  answered.  The 
declaration  that,  "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ 
will  all  be  made  alive,"  *  does  not  assert  a  universal  resur- 
rection ;  for  it  is  made  in  connection  with  the  Parousia  at 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  only  all  who  were  "  in  Christ  " 
were  to  be  raised.  The  second  "  all  "  is  accordingly  limited 
to  believers,  just  as  in  the  words  :  "  As,  then,  through 
one  trespass  all  men  have  come  under  condemnation, 'so 
through  one  act  of  righteousness  all  obtain  the  gift  of 
righteousness  unto  life,"  the  "all  "  in  the  second  clause 
includes  only  those  who  should  believe,  f  That  Paul  had 
taught  the  Corinthians  in  accordance  with  this  interpreta- 
tion appears  to  be  evident  from  the  custom  of  baptizing  for 
the  dead,  which  he  mentions  if  not  with  approval  at  least 
without  disapproval.^:  It  is  evident  that  dead  relatives 
or  friends  who  had  departed  without  faith  in  Christ  would 
not  be  baptized  through  the  baptism  and  confession  of  the 
living  unless  it  was  believed  that  their  resurrection  could 
thereby  be  secured.  "  If  the  dead  rise  not,"  asks  Paul, 
"  what  are  they  doing  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead  ?  " 

*  i  Cor.  xv.  22. 

f  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  most  of  the  great  exegetes.     See,  how- 
ever,  Meyer  in  loc. 
\  i  Cor.  xv.  29. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  22$ 

This  certainly  does  not  mean,  "  if  all  the  dead  rise  not," 
but  "  if  the  dead  in  Christ  rise  not,"  for  if  all  were 
expected  to  rise,  baptism  for  the  dead  would  be  super- 
fluous. It  appears  to  be  in  accord  with  a  fundamental 
idea  of  Paul's  that  the  life  in  the  flesh,  the  life  without  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth  even  the  mortal  body,  excludes 
from  the  resurrection,  and  has  as  its  end  "  destruction,'5 
or  "  perishing."  The  opposite  of  "  perish  "  is  to  be  raised, 
as  is  evident  from  the  saying  that  if  there  be  no  resurrec- 
tion then  they  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are 
"  perished,"  *  and  that  "  we  are  the  odor  of  death  to  those 
who  are  perishing."f  They  that  "  live  according  to  the 
flesh  are  sure  to  die,"  yet  since  believers  also  die  there 
must  be  something  more  than  the  natural  death  of  the 
body  implied  in  the  dying  of  unbelievers,  namely,  that 
that  they  will  not  "  live  "  again,  as  will  those  who  "  by  the 
Spirit  make  an  end  of  the  deeds  of  the  body."  The 
"  end  ''  of  the  "  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ  "  is 
"  destruction."  J  The  day  of  the  Lord,  or  the  Parousia, 
cometh  as  a  thief  in  the  night,  and  upon  those  who  are 
saying,  Peace  and  safety,  "  doth  sudden  destruction  come, 
and  they  shall  not  escape.  "§  Throughout  the  Pauline 
theology  there  is  manifest  the  dualism  of  flesh,  sin,  death 
or  destruction,  and  the  Spirit,  justification,  life  or  resur- 
rection. The  antithesis  of  life,  everlasting  life,||  in  which 
is  included  the  clothing  upon  with  the  incorruptible  body, 
is  death,  or  hopeless  tarrying  in  the  realm  of  the  dead. 
It  is  manifest  that  a  resurrection  of  those  who  were  not 
"  in  Christ  "  to  a  judgment  of  condemnation  or  to  ever- 


*  i  Cor.  xv.  1  8,  a 

f  2  Cor.  ii.  15. 

\  Phil.  iii.  19,  aitoo^-Eia.  §  I  Thess.  v.  2,  3. 


224        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

lasting  punishment  is  entirely  incongruous  with  this  point 
of  view,  since  for  these  Paul  knows  of  no  resurrection 
at  all.* 

While  this  view  appears  to  be  consistent  with  itself 
throughout  and  with  the  general  trend  of  Paul's  teaching, 
indications  have  been  pointed  out  in  his  Epistles  of 
eschatological  ideas  more  akin  to  Judaism.  He  does 
not,  indeed,  expressly  say  that  those  not  "  in  Christ  "  will 
be  raised,  but  a  resurrection  of  unbelievers  appears  to  be 
implied  in  the  words  :  "  The  dead  in  Christ  will  rise  first," 
and  "  the  last  enemy,  death,  shall  be  destroyed."  There 
are  clear  declarations  of  a  judgment,  of  "  the  day  of  the 
Lord,"  of  "  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ  "  and  of  God,  and 
of  a  "  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by 

*  The  outcome  cf  the  work  of  Christ  at  the  Parousia  would,  however,  by 
no  means  be  meagre  according  to  this  conception,  for  Paul  believed  in  the 
coming  in  of  "  the  fulness  of  the  gentiles  "  and  the  saving  of  "  all  Israel  " 
before  that  event.  See  Rom.  xi.  25  f. 

While  a  resurrection  of  unbelievers  is  nowhere  explicitly  affirmed  by  Paul, 
and  is  excluded  by  his  fundamental  principle  that  the  possession  of  the  Spirit 
is  the  pledge  of  life  from  the  dead,  it  appears  to  be  implied  in  the  declara- 
tion concerning  the  day  of  wrath  when  God  "will  render  to  every  one 
according  to  his  works,"  and  of  the  day  when  "  God  will  judge  the  secrets 
of  men  by  Jesus  Christ"  (Rom.  ii.  5,  6,  16).  The  reference  in  these  pas- 
sages to  the  Parousia  can  hardly  be  denied.  '  A  universal  judgment  is  also 
the  natural  inference  from  the  remark  that  "  the  holy  will  judge  the  world  " 
(i  Cor.  vi.  2).  But  it  is  evident  that  this  language  of  Jewish  apocalypse  is 
no  more  reconcilable  with  the  teaching  that  Paul  had  most  at  heart  than  the 
doctrine  of  a  renovated  creation  and  a  reign  of  Christ  till  all  enemies  should 
be  put  under  his  feet,  is  reconcilable  with  the  ascent  of  the  resurrected  and 
living  saints  at  the  Parousia  with  bodies  of  glory  to  meet  the  descending 
Lord  in  the  air,  and  be  "  forever"  with  him.  The  harmonists  who  think 
they  can  reconcile  Paul  with  himself  and  find  in  his  teaching  a  "  system"  of 
theology  have  no  difficulty,  of  course,  in  showing  that  to  "  render  to  every 
man  according  to  his  works  "  is  compatible  with  the  doctrines  of  grace  and 
justification  by  faith. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  22$ 

Jesus  Christ."  He  also  speaks  of  a  "  reign  "  of  Christ 
until  all  enemies  are  put  under  his  feet,  and  of  the 
11  creation  "  as  promised  a  deliverance  "  from  the  bondage 
of  corruption  into  the  freedom  of  the  glory  of  the  children 
of  God."  f  To  the  believers  in  Corinth  he  promises  the 
exalted  function  of  judges  of  the  world  and  even  of 
angels4  "  The  holy  "  will  sit  with  Christ  at  the  Parousia 
on  the  judgment-seat.  All  this  has  an  apocalyptic- 
millenarian  aspect  which  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  the 
spiritual-mystic  conception  of  eschatology  previously  con- 
sidered. It  has  well  been  asked  why  a  judgment  should 
be  thought  necessary  for  the  resurrected  "  dead  in  Christ  " 
who  had  already  been  "  accepted  as  righteous,"  or  for  the 
believers  living  at  the  Parousia,  who  were  to  be  "  changed 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  "  into  the  likeness  of  Christ's 
body  of  glory,  why,  in  fact,  these  should  have  to  "  appear 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ "  who  were  deemed 
qualified  to  sit  with  him  in  judgment  upon  the  world  and 
even  the  angels.  The  deliverance  of  the  groaning  creation 
appears  to  imply  a  reign  of  Christ  upon  the  earth  and 
perhaps  a  subjection  there  of  his  "  enemies,"  in  which 
case  some  light  might  be  thrown  upon  the  question  pre- 
viously raised  regarding  the  destiny  of  the  unbelievers 
who  should  be  living  at  the  Parousia,  if  we  knew  what 
was  meant  by  the  putting  under  the  feet  of  Christ. 
But  in  the  graphic  apocalyptic  account  of  the  Parousia 
in  i  Thessalonians  the  resurrected  are  represented  as 
ascending  to  meet  the  coming  Lord  "  in  the  air  " — a  state- 
ment which  certainly  does  not  imply  either  a  reign  upon 
the  earth  or  a  judgment.  The  incompatibility  of  ideas 
is  still  further  apparent  when  we  attempt  to  reconcile 

*  i  Cor.  viii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  i.  14,  v.  10  ;  Rom.  ii.  16,  xiv.  10,  etc. 
f  i  Cor.  xv.  25  ;  Rom.  viii.  21.  \  i  Cor.  vi.  2,  3. 


226        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

either  a  judgment  of  the  believers  or  their  ascent  to  meet 
Christ  in  the  air  with  the  doctrine  that  immediately  at 
death  they  were  "  at  home  with  the  Lord,"  and  already 
clothed  with  the  spiritual  body  "  from  heaven."  Finally 
"  the  end  "  is  not  defined  with  a  dogmatic  clearness. 
Christ,  having  reigned  until  all  his  enemies  are  under 
his  feet,  will  deliver  up  his  kingdom  to  the  Father,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all,  that  is,  all  "  in  Christ  and  in  what- 
ever his  kingdom  may  contain."  If  this  kingdom  is 
supposed  to  be  a  transformed  humanity,  we  have  here 
a  doctrine  of  the  restoration  of  mankind,  which  we  might 
believe  to  be  taught  if  it  were  not  for  the  repeated 
declaration  that  destruction  and  perishing  are  the  fate  of 
those  who  have  lived  according  to  the  flesh,  and  if  there 
were  an  intimation  that  Christ  .during  his  "reign,"  the 
duration  of  which  is  undetermined,  were  to  be  engaged 
in  the  conversion  of  the  living  unbelievers.  But  we  are 
told  only  of  his  enemies  being  put  under  his  feet,  an  ex- 
pression which  implies  Messianic  conquest  rather  than 
evangelization,  and  in  the  Pauline  teaching  there  is  no 
resurrection  to  life  for  unbelievers.  Paul's  teaching 
regarding  "  the  end  "  can,  however,  have  no  importance 
for  us  apart  from  the  interest  which  attaches  to  it  as  a 
phase  of  the  history  of  doctrines ;  for  to  him  the  final 
consummation  was  near  at  hand.*  The  voice  of  an  arch- 
angel and  the  trump  of  God  which  he  conceived  to  be 
about  to  sound  were  not  for  the  millions  who  have 
since  "  fallen  asleep,"  and  the  horoscope  of  destiny 
was  not  cast  by  him  for  the  ages  yet  to  be.  His 
eschatology  contains  different  and  irreconcilable  ideas, 
some  of  which  appear  to  have  been  held  in  successive 
periods  of  his  life,  and  others  at  the  same  time,  without 

*  Rom.  xiv.  12  ;  Phil.  iv.  5  ;  i  Cor.  vii.  29. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  22/ 

any  attempt  to  bring  them  into  the  unity  of 
a  system  of  thought.  If  that  phase  of  it  which  has 
exerted  the  greatest  influence  was  that  which  he  was 
most  in  earnest  about,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
expressed  his  deepest  conviction  not  when  he  wrote 
after  the  manner  of  a  Jewish  apocalyptist  concerning  a 
descent  of  Christ  to  the  earth  with  "  the  trump  of  God," 
of  the  rising  of  the  dead,  of  a  renovated  creation,  of  a 
judgment-seat,  of  a  Messianic  reign,  and  of  a  subjection 
of  the  Messiah's  enemies,  but  when  as  a  spiritual  Hellenist 
he  wrote  of  the  mystic  union  with  Christ  by  which  the 
soul  was  inwardly  transfigured  and  clothed  upon  at  death 
with  the  habitation  from  heaven,  emerging  from  the 
bondage  to  the  clogging  flesh  to  be  in  joyous  freedom 
"  at  home  with  the  Lord." "  It  is  evident  that,  destitute 
of  this  spiritual  conception  and  employing  only  the 
weapons  of  Jewish  materialism,  he  could  not  have 
advanced  his  cause  with  those  at  Corinth  who  doubted 
that  there  is  a  resurrection,  and  that  had  he  not  been  in 
touch  with  Hellenistic  ideas  he  could  never  have  con- 
ceived and  carried  out  the  great  apostleship  to  the 
gentiles.  The  doctrine  that  the  deliverance  of  the  souls 
of  believers  from  the  dreary  realm  of  the  underworld  and 
their  real  entrance  upon  the  immortal  life  began  only  with 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  furnished  a  doubtful  consola- 
tion at  the  best,  which  would  have  been  neutralized  by 
the  despair  of  an  indefinite  waiting  for  the  ever-postponed 
Parousia.  The  advance,  then,  of  Paul's  thought  beyond 
this  Jewish  conception  not  only  shows  the  greatness  of 
his  mind,  but  denotes  the  ascendancy  of  his  influence  in 
the  gentile  world,  and  reveals  him  as  the  cosmopolitan 

*  The  idea  that  the  fleshly  body  is  a  burden  to  the  soul  is  expressed  in  the 
Hellenistic  book  of  Wisdom,  ix.  15.     See  2  Cor.  v.  2. 


228        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

teacher  who  delivered  the  gospel  of  Jesus  from  the  peril 
of  asphyxiation  in  the  atmosphere  of  provincial  narrow- 
ness, and  established  it  as  a  universal  historical  power. 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  considerations  that 
what  is  called  Paulinism  is  not  so  much  a  system  as  a 
combination  of  theological  and  religious  ideas  without 
strictly  logical  connection,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
transformation  of  Christianity  rather  than  an  interpreta- 
tion of  it,  since  they  are  not  concerned  with  an  exposition 
of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  but  with  a  metaphysical  and 
mystical  construction  of  his  death  and  resurrection  with 
relation  to  the  problem  of  salvation.  In  the  exigencies 
of  controversy  the  apostle  appears  to  have  assumed  ex- 
treme positions  which  are  not  easily  reconcilable  with  one 
another,  as  when  he  emphasizes  human  responsibility  and 
declares  men  "  inexcusable "  for  not  living  righteously, 
and  again  represents  the  inward  man  as  powerless  for 
good  under  the  dominion  of  the  flesh,  and  in  bondage  to 
sin ;  and  when  he  makes  justification  by  faith  depend  on 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  yet  presents  Abraham  as  an 
example  of  the  attainment  of  righteousness  by  faith  with- 
out the  intervention  of  Christ,  thus  apparently  making 
the  essential  superfluous.  His  great  merit  was  that  he 
delivered  Christianity  from  the  shackles  of  Judaism,  and 
rendered  it  possible  that  the  gospel  of  Jesus  should  be- 
come a  world-religion.  His  thought,  then,  marks  a  transi- 
tion, and  perhaps  necessarily  had  two  sides,  the  one 
turning  toward  the  Judaism  from  which  it  was  seeking 
to  free  itself,  and  the  other  toward  the  Hellenism  which 
it  was  striving  to  win.  The  latter  aspect  of  his  thought 
together  with  the  great  Jewish  monotheistic  doctrine  sur- 
vived, and  accomplished  the  work  for  which  it  was  fitted. 


THE   PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2 29 

His  idealism,  spirituality,  and  mysticism  commended 
themselves  to  gentile  thought,  and  transformed  Hellen- 
istic philosophy  into  religion.  His  Jewish  apocalyptics, 
the  Parousia,  the  trumpet  which  should  call  up  the  dead, 
also  had  their  day,  and  still  perform  a  ministry  to  those 
who  will  have  no  religion  which  is  not  a  poorly-disguised 
materialism.  The  Christology  which  he  placed  in  the 
foreground  of  his  teaching,  a  conception  of  "  the  second 
Adam  "  and  the  "  man  from  heaven,"  is  so  metaphysical 
and  so  foreign  to  the  simplicity  of  Jesus  that  it  is  not 
likely  to  hold  a  permanent  place  in  religious  thought. 
The  acceptance  of  men  as  righteous  by  faith  is  too  ex- 
treme and  abstract  a  doctrine  to  find  general  favor  with- 
out important  modifications ;  but  the  spiritual  principle 
of  dying  to  sin  and  living  again  in  union  with  God  and 
Christ  embodies  a  universal  truth  which  is  confirmed  by 
the  deepest  human  experience,  and  it  is  likely  to  be  per- 
manent with  or  without  the  mystical  application  which 
his  Christology  gives  to  it.* 

That  the  attempt  of  Paul  to  give  to  Christianity  at 
the  same  time  a  Jewish  and  a  Hellenistic  interpretation 
resulted  in  a  transformation  of  it  has  already  been  pointed 
out.  This  transformation  appears  especially  in  his  Chris- 
tology and  his  doctrine  of  redemption.  Jesus  did  not 
represent  himself  as  the  preexistent  second  Adam  and 
the  man  from  heaven,  nor  did  he  teach  that  he  came  to 

*  Matthew  Arnold  appears  to  accept  this  doctrine  in  its  mystical  aspect. 
Yet  Goethe,  whom  he  quotes  as  a  "  witness  "  to  it,  omits  the  mysticism  : 
"  Stirb  und  werde  ! 

Denn  so  lang  du  das  nicht  hast, 

Bist  du  nur  ein  trtiber  Cast  , 

Auf  der  dunkeln  Erde 

"  Die  and  re-exist  !  for  so  long  as  this  is  not  accomplished,  thou  art  but  a 
troubled  guest  upon  an  earth  of  gloom." 


230        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

bear  the  curse  of  the  law  in  his  death.  He  knew  of  no 
righteousness  which  was  reckoned  to  men  on  account  of 
faith,  but  only  of  one  which,  like  that  taught  by  the 
prophets,  was  gained  by  an  obedience  sanctified  by  love 
to  God.  He  would  bring  men  into  that  immediate  com- 
munion with  the  Father  in  which  he  found  strength  and 
peace,  and  whereby  they  in  subjection  to  the  divine  will 
should  be  transformed  and  quickened  ;  but  he  knew  of 
no  mediator  and  intercessor  and  no  magical  new  creation. 
But  however  much  the  great  apostle  may  have  contributed 
to  a  doctrinal  transformation  of  Christianity,  it  should 
not  be  overlooked  that  his  life  and  character  were  a  noble 
exemplification  of  its  spirit,  and  will  survive  as  a  helpful 
influence  and  an  inspiration  to  mankind,  whatever  may 
be  the  fortune  of  his  doctrinal  teachings.  With  all  his 
reliance  upon  faith  he  was  a  man  of  action,  and  displayed 
unwearied  zeal  in  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  a  missionary  of 
the  noblest  type.  He  was  a  vigorous  champion  of  reason 
and  intellectual  liberty  and  of  the  freedom  of  the  spirit, 
despite  his  bondage  as  a  Jew  to  the  letter  of  the  sacred 
books  of  his  race.  A  man  of  the  deepest  piety,  he  was 
conscious  of  his  dependence  upon  God,  of  his  inability 
apart  from  the  Spirit  and  the  indwelling  Christ,  and 
though  self-reliant  and  bold,  even  vehement  and  intolerant 
toward  the  narrowness  which  would  defeat  his  ends,  he 
was  of  all  men  the  most  affected  with  a  sense  of  his  un- 
worthiness.  His  gratitude  to  God  was  as  abundant  as 
his  aspiration  for  perfect  fellowship  with  Him  was  earnest 
and  ardent.  In  nothing  did  he  more  eminently  manifest 
the  spirit  of  his  Master  than  in  his  self-sacrificing  devotion 
to  the  welfare  of  mankind,  which  is  especially  touching 
in  his  affectionate  interest  in  his  "  brethren  according  to 
the  flesh,"  for  whose  conversion  he  toiled,  and  hoped 


THR    PAULINE    TRANSFORMATION.  23! 

against  hope.  In  his  immortal  hymn  to  Love  *  the  poetic 
genius  of  his  nation  found  its  latest  inspired  and  classical 
expression,  f 

*  I  Cor.  xiii. 

f  On  the  Pauline  teaching  the  student  may  consult :  Immer,  Theol.  des 
N.  T.,  pp.  205-356  ;  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  3te  Ausg.,  §§  58-87 
(Eng  Trans.,  i.  pp.  292  to  end);  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum,  pp. 
153-280;  Der  Paulinismus,  2te  Aufl.  ;  Baur,  Paulus,  2te  Ausg.  ii.  pp.  123- 
315,  and  Neutestamentl.  Theol.,  pp.  128-207  ;  Weizsacker,  Das  apostol. 
Zeitalter,  pp.  106-139  ;  Lechler,  Das  apostol.  u.  nachapostol.  Zeitalter,  3te 
Ausg.,  pp.  269-387  ;  Von  Colin,  Bibl.  Theol.,  ii.  pp.  167-338  ;  Hausrath, 
Neutestamentl.  Zeitgesch.,  ii.  pp.  439-499  ;  Holsten,  Zum  Evangelium  des 
Paulus  u.  des  Petrus,  passim  ;  Holtzmann,  Judenthum  u.  Christenthum, 
PP-  553  ft  I  Pfleiderer,  The  Influence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on  the  Develop- 
ment of  Christianity  (The  Hibbert  Lectures,  1885) ;  Matthew  Arnold,  St. 
Paul  and  Protestantism;  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity  (see  "Paul "in 
Index  of  Subjects)  ;  Reuss,  La  Theologie  Chretienne  au  Siecle  Apostolique, 
ii.  pp.  14-242  ;  Martineau,  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  Book  iv. 
chap.  ii.  §§  2,  3,  chap.  iii.  §§  2,  3  ;  Stevens,  The  Pauline  Theology,  1892  ; 
Beyschlag,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  1892,  ii.  pp.  1-252  ;  Coquerel, 
First  Historical  Transformations  of  Christianity,  1867,  pp.  in  f  ;  Crocker, 
Different  New  Testament  Views  of  Jesus,  1890,  pp.  32  f. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS. 

PAULINISM  does  not  appear  to  have  met  immedi- 
ately with  a  general  acceptance  in  the  Church  in  the 
form  in  which  it  was  conceived  and  presented  by  its  great 
and  original  author.  With  other  times  came  new  exigencies 
and  the  necessity  of  new  adjustments  of  Christianity  to 
them,  and  this  bold  transformation  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
was  destined  itself  to  be  transformed  by  its  friends,  and 
adapted  to  the  changing  needs  of  the  believers  in  an  age 
teeming  with  novel  ideas  and  daring  speculations.  It 
might  be  expected  that  the  result  would  show  a  softening 
of  some  of  the  harder  lines  of  Paulinism  and  the  promi- 
nence in  Christian  thought  of  conceptions  whose  descent 
could  not  be  traced  directly  from  the  great  apostle.  If 
Paul  "  planted  "  in  Hellenistic  soil,  and  the  Alexandrian 
Apollos  "  watered,  "  it  may  very  well  have  turned  out 
that  "  the  increase  "  was  a  crop  of  ideas  and  speculations 
related  both  to  the  Synagogue  and  to  the  philosophy  of 
Philo.  By  reason  of  its  origin,  its  birth  out  of  the  throes 
of  a  Hebrew  soul  struggling  for  freedom  from  Jewish 
legalism,  Paulinism  contained  ideas  which  could  be  appre- 
ciated only  by  minds  familiar  with  the  school  of  thought 
in  which  the  apostle  had  been  trained.  Adapted  to  the 
reconciling  of  Jews  with  Christianity  by  removing  the 
"  offence  "  of  the  cross,  these  ideas  of  the  opposition  of 
the  law  and  the  gospel,  of  a  representative  propitia- 

232 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.      233 

tion,  of  the  abolition  of  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  of  a 
righteousness  which  was  "  accounted  "  to  men  through 
faith,  could  not  be  understood  by  gentiles,  and  very  soon 
fell  into  disuse,  among  those  who  had  no  interest  in  and 
no  comprehension  of  the  original  Pauline  contest  against 
Judaism.  On  the  contrary,  certain  of  Paul's  ideas  which 
had  an  affinity  for  gentile  thought  were  appropriated  by 
thinkers  who  were  favorable  to  Paulinism  in  general,  and 
adapted  in  connection  with  current  speculations  to  the 
exigencies  of  post-apostolic  times.  The  New-Testament 
literature  which  represents  this  modified  Paulinism  has 
received  from  criticism  the  designation  Deutero-Pauline, 
and  may  be  regarded  as  embracing  the  Epistles  to  the 
Hebrews,  Colossians,  and  Ephesians,  and  the  first  Epistle 
of  Peter. 

I. THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

The  first  of  these  Epistles,  which  is  evidently  the  work 
of  a  Pauline  Christian  favorably  disposed  to  the  Alex- 
andrian thought,  was  probably  written  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  first  century  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the 
wavering  faith  of  certain  Jewish  Christians.*  In  order  to 
counteract  an  assumed  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  per- 

*  The  date,  authorship,  and  address  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are 
indeterminable.  It  was  probably  written  between  A.D.  80  and  90,  and 
addressed  to  Roman  Christians.  That  Paul  was  not  its  author  has  long  been 
held  by  the  critical  school,  and  is  now  generally  conceded.  The  limits  of 
this  work  require  the  acceptance  of  the  conclusions  of  criticism  with  regard 
to  the  various  New  Testament  writings  without  a  discussion  of  their  grounds. 
The  critical  school  is,  however,  divided  on  the  question  of  the  date  of  the 
Epistle.  But  the  date  is  not  a  matter  of  great  importance.  Hilgenfeld, 
followed  by  Davidson,  places  the  composition  shortly  before  A.  D.  70.  See, 
however,  Holtzmann  in  Schenkel's  Bibel  Lexicon,  ii.  p.  623.  Volkmar 
dates  it  at  116-118. 


234        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

sons  addressed  to  go  back  to  their  former  Jewish  belief, 
the  writer  makes  it  his  chief  object  to  show  the  superiority 
of  Christianity  to  Judaism.  Over  against  the  changing, 
sinful  priesthood  of  Judaism,  and  its  frequent  sacrifices  in 
an  earthly  sanctuary,  which  serve  only  for  outward  puri- 
fication, he  places  Christ  conceived  as  a  great  high  priest 
whose  one  sacrifice  has  effected  salvation  forever,  he 
having  entered  "  into  a  sanctuary  not  made  with  hands,  " 
"  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God 
in  our  behalf. "  *  The  contact  of  the  writer  with  the 
idealism  of  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  is  indicated  in  his 
conception  of  archetype  and  copy,  reality  and  shadow, 
applied  to  the  heavenly  and  earthly  sanctuaries.  As  a 
high  priest  "  who  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne 
of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens, "  Christ  is  a  minister  of 
"  the  true  tabernacle,  "  while  those  priests  "  who  offer  the 
gifts  according  to  the  law  "  "  serve  the  mere  delineation 
and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things.  "  f  The  Christology 
of  Paul  denotes,  as  has  been  shown,  a  wide  depar- 
ture from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  regarding  his  person,  and 
that  of  this  writer  is  a  marked  deviation  from  Paulinism 
in  this  regard.  As  Paul  knew  nothing  of  Jesus  as  "  the 
apostle  and  high-priest  of  our  confession,  "  \  so  the  author 
of  Hebrews  appears  not  to  know  anything  of  him  as  "  the 
second  Adam"  and  "the  man  from  heaven."  In  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  work  of  Christ  the  stress  is  laid 
upon  his  death  and  resurrection,  while  in  Hebrews  the 
chief  prominence  is  given  to  his  heavenly  function  as 

*  Heb.  ix.  24. 

f  Heb.  viii.  5,  vitofteiyna  Hal  6ntd  raoy  knovpaviosv;  ix.  23,  dvrirv- 
ita  rvtv  dhrfiiv&v.  See  book  of  Wisdom  ix.  -8, where  the  temple  is  spoken  of 
as  a  jutjurj/ja  6xj?vr}S  ayiaS  rjv  TtporjToinatiaS  ait  apxtf,  "  a  copy  of  the 
holy  tent  which  Thou  didst  prepare  from  the  beginning." 
Heb.  iii.  i. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     2$$ 

high-priest  and  intercessor.  Although  the  writer  does  not 
designate  Christ  as  the  Logos,  he  ascribes  to  him  some  of 
the  functions  which"  Philo  attributes  to  this  agent,  and 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  form  in  which  his  Chris- 
tology  is  presented  shows  the  influence  of  the  Alexandrian 
speculator.  While  he  does  not  appear  to  have  advanced 
so  far  in  the  understanding  and  development  of  the 
Alexandrian  gnosis  as  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
he  shows  more  points  of  contact  with  it  than  Paul,  and 
may  be  regarded  as  in  this  respect  holding  an  inter- 
mediate position  between  these  two  great  writers. 

The  importance  which  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  at- 
tached to  his  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  apparent 
in  the  Christological  propositions  which  he  lays  down  at 
the  outset  as  the  basis  of  his  argument.  There  are  to 
be  observed  here  as  in  Paul's  writings  the  absence  of  a 
distinctive  treatment  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  a  ten- 
dency to  an  idealizing  exaltation  of  his  person  and  office, 
in  which  the  historical  Jesus,  the  teacher,  the  preacher  of 
righteousness,  the  Son  of  Man,  and  the  prophet  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  disappears  from  view  to  give  place  to 
the  Son  of  God,  the  high-priest,  and  the  heavenly  inter- 
cessor in  behalf  of  the  faithful.  When  the  writer  calls 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  evident  that  he  neither  em- 
ploys the  term  in  the  Jewish-Messianic  sense,  nor  in  the 
Pauline  sense,  but  to  designate  him  as  the  appointed 
"  heir  of  all  things,"  the  agent  of  the  creation,  a  "  bright- 
ness" from  the  "  glory"  of  God,  and  "an  image  of  His 
being,"  who  "  upholds  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power."  *  The  ideas  of  the  preexistence  of  Christ  and  of 
his  agency  in  the  creation  are  Pauline,  but  other  attributes 
and  functions  ascribed  to  him  transcend  Paulinism  and 

*Heb.  i.  2,  3. 


236       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

betray  an  Alexandrian  origin.  The  word  employed  to 
express  the  idea  of  a  brightness  or  reflection  of  the  divine 
glory  is  an  Alexandrian  term  *  which  is  found  in  the 
book  of  Wisdom  and  in  Philo,  and  only  here  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament.  In  the  expression  "  the  image  of 
His  being,"  f  that  is,  His  person,  is  contained  the  idea 
that  the  nature  of  the  Father  is  impressed  upon  the  Son 
so  that  the  latter  is,  so  to  speak,  a  copy  of  the  former. 
Finally,  as  the  writer  had  conceived  of  Jesus  as  an  agent 
in  the  creation  of  the  worlds,  he  continues  the  sketch  of 
his  greatness  by  representing  him  as  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  and  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  thus  ascribing  to  him  the  func- 
tions of  a  universal  Providence,  just  as  Philo  regarded  the 
Logos  as  "  the  bond  of  all  things,"  who  "  holds  together 
and  administers  the  universe."  \  Having  shown  the  superi- 
ority of  Christ  over  the  prophets  as  mediators  of  the  Old- 
Testament  revelation,  the  writer  proceeds  to  demonstrate 
his  preeminence  over  the  angels  who  were  regarded  by  the 
Jews  as  also  agents  in  the  communication  of  the  divine 
word  to  men.  If  this  argument  is  directed,  as  some  sup- 
pose, against  a  tendency  in  his  readers  to  put  Christ, 
angels,  and  the  spiritual  powers  on  an  equal  footing  and 
so  to  degrade  Christianity  to  a  level  with  Essenene  and 

*  dnavya6^a.  Meyer  finds  in  this  term  the  three  ideas  of  independent 
existence,  of  origin,  and  of  similarity,  i.  e.,  existence  apart  from  God,  origin 
from  Him,  and  a  nature  similar  to  His.  Commentar  in  loc.  So  in  the  book 
of  Wisdom  the  personified  wisdom  of  God  is  called  "  the  brightness  of  the 
everlasting  light,"  ctitavy  a(5j.ia  (pwroS  aiSiov,  vii.  26. 

f  X<xp<xxTTfp.  In  Philo  the  Logos  is  said  to  be  the  image  of  God,  and 
the  rational  soul  is  compared  to  a  coin  stamped  with  the  seal  of  God,  the 
impress  (xctpaKTTjp)  of  which  is  the  everlasting  Logos.  Cf.  Col.  i.  15, 

rov  Osov  dopdrov,  "  image  of  the  invisible  God." 
Quis  rer.  div.  har.  44  ;     Vita  Mas.  iii.14. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     2'tf 

other  mystic  spirit-cults,  it  would  appear  to  be  made  con- 
clusive by  the  citation  from  a  Psalm  in  which  the  writer 
makes  God  himself  address  the  Son  as  "  God."  *  So  Philo 
designates  the  Logos  as  "  the  second  God,"  although 
regarding  him  [it]  as  subordinate  to  and  dependent  on  the 
Supreme  Being,  f 

Philo's  speculative  idea  that  the  Logos  dwelt  in  the 
great  Jewish  teachers,  and  was  represented  by  the  high- 
priest,  is,  however,  surpassed  by  the  thought  of  the  Chris- 
tian Alexandrian  who  wrote  this  Epistle  that,  "  we  see 
him  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  Jesus, 
on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor,  that  by  the  grace  of  God  he  might  taste  death 
for  every  one."  £  The  advance  of  Christianity  beyond 
Alexandrian  speculation  is  here  indicated  in  the  religious 
aspect  which  the  incarnation  is  made  to  assume.  The 
Son  of  God  becoming  human  and  making  a  sacrifice  once 
for  all  in  behalf  of  mankind,  brings  man  to  God,  and  so 
unites  the  upper  and  nether  worlds,  the  world  of  ideas 
and  the  world  of  sense,  between  which  philosophy  had 
been  able  to  effect  only  a  metaphysical  reconciliation.  It 
is  not  clear  how  the  writer  conceived  the  entrance  of 
this  exalted  preexistent  being,  the  image  of  the  divine 
personality, upon  a  human  life  to  have  been  effected.  In 
one  place  he  says  :  "  It  is  well  known  that  our  Lord  sprang 
out  of  Judah,"  §  an  expression  which  clearly  implies  a 
natural  birth  of  human  parents.  On  the  other  hand  he 
represents  Christ's  prototype  as  Melchisedek  who  was 

*  Heb.  i.  8.  But  of  the  Son  [He  said]  thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ever,  Ps.  xlv.  6.  The  application  of  the  passage  from  the  Psalm  to  Christ  is 
a  perversion  of  its  original  sense. 

f  See  Drummond,  Philo  Judseus,  1888,  ii.  pp.  195  ff. 

i  Heb.  ii.  9.  §  Heb.  vii. 


238        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"  without  father,  without  mother,  without  record  of  de- 
scent, having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life." ' 
It  is  difficult  to  draw  another  conclusion  from  this  than 
that  he  intended  to  attribute  a  similar  origin  to  Christ, 
for  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  reason  for  his 
going  out  of  his  way  to  say  that  of  Melchisedek  which  is 
not  contained  in  the  mention  of  him  in  Genesis,  f  He 
appears  also  to  imply  a  supernatural  intervention  in  bring- 
ing Christ  into  the  world  when  he  misinterprets  a  passage 
from  a  Psalm  so  as  to  make  Christ  say  in  it :  "A  body 
didst  thou  prepare  for  me."  \  He  could  hardly  have  had 
recourse  to  this  passage  if  he  had  had  in  mind  only  the 
natural  human  body.  Pfleiderer  calls  attention  to  the 
denial  in  the  nearly  contemporaneous  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
of  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  man,  and  con- 
cludes that  the  Docetic  Christology  of  Gnosticism,  which 
maintained  that  Christ's  body  was  not  a  real  one  of  flesh 
and  blood,  was  then  well  under  way,  but  not  yet  accounted 
a  heresy.  In  any  case  there  appear  to  be  in  the  Epistle 
two  hypotheses  of  Christ's  entrance  into  human  life  which 
the  writer  has  left  without  formal  reconciliation.  The 
Christology  of  the  Epistle  appears  to  contain  other  incon- 
gruities in  that  it  represents  Christ  who  was  the  "  image" 

*  Heb.  vii.  3. 

f  Meyer's  opinion  that  the  writer  meant  simply  to  say  that  no  genealogy 
of  Melchisedek  is  given  in  the  Bible  flattens  the  whole  passage,  and  makes 
this  reference  to  the  descent  of  the  prince  of  Salem  unmeaning. 

\  Ps.  xl.  6.  The  reference  of  the  passage  to  Christ  is  easily  explained  by 
the  writer's  allegorizing  tendency  in  accordance  with  his  Alexandrian  edu- 
cation ;  but  his  rendering  of  the  original :  "  Thou  hast  opened  my  ears  "  by  : 
"  A  body  didst  Thou  prepare  for  me,"  can  be  explained  only  by  supposing 
him  to  have  followed  blindly  the  incorrect  Septuagint  version.  For  an  ex- 
planation of  the  error  in  the  Septuagint  see  De  Wette,  Commentar  tiber  die 
Psalmen,  p.  249,  and  Meyer  on  Heb.  x.  5. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     239 

of  God  as  being  tempted  "  in  all  points  as  we  are,"  as  being 
"perfected  through  suffering,"  and  as  "  learning  obedience 
by  what  he  suffered."  He  by  whom  the  worlds  were 
made,  the  sustainer  of  all  things,  second  apparently  only 
to  the  Deity  in  glory,  is  said  to  be  "  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor  on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death."  *  To  the 
thought  of  this  writer  as  well  as  to  Paul's  two  currents 
appear  to  have  contributed,  the  one  bearing  Hellenistic 
idealism  and  speculation,  and  the  other  the  materials  of 
history  and  tradition.  Neither  writer  attempted  an  ad- 
justment of  the  two  deposits  to  each  other. 

The  Epistle  has  not  the  appearance  of  having  been 
written  with  especial  reference  to  the  Pauline  apprehen- 
sion of  Christianity,  and  many  of  the  ideas  which  were 
prominent  in  the  apostle's  thought  do  not  seem  to  have 
been  in  the  writer's  mind.  The  principal  points  of  contact 
with  Paulinism  are  the  teachings  that  all  things  are  from 
God  and  to  Him;f  that  Christ  was  the  image  of  God, 
and  that  all  things  were  made  by  him ;  \  that  Christ 
humbled  himself  and  was  exalted  ;  §  that  death  was  over- 
come by  Christ ;  ||  that  Christ  suffered  for  sinners  ;  T  and 
that  Christ  acts  as  an  intercessor  before  the  Father.** 

*  Heb.  ii.  9  f,  iv.  15,  v.  8  f.  The  idea  that  Christ's  temptation  and  suf- 
ferings were  a  means  of  his  moral  development  does  not  appear  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  writer  doubtless  wishes  to  present  Christ  to 
his  readers  as  an  example  of  constancy  under  persecution.  The  doctrine  is 
manifestly  unpauline,  and  the  writer  does  not  appear  to  have  thought  of  the 
difficulty  of  reconciling  the  conception  of  a  preexistent  Christ  crowned  with 
the  glory  of  a  divine  nature  with  that  of  an  afflicted  human  being  attaining 
perfection  and  honor  through  obedience  and  pain. 

f  Heb.  ii.  10 ;  Rom.  xi.  36  ;  I  Cor.  viii.  6. 

\  Heb.  i.  1-3  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  4  ;  I  Cor.  viii.  6. 

§  Heb.  i.  4  ;  Phil.  ii.  8,9.  ||  Heb.  ii.  14  ;  I  Cor.  xv.  54-57. 

Tf  Heb.  ix.  26-28,  x.  12  ;  Rom.  vi.  9, 10. 

**  Heb.  vii.  25  ;   Rom.  viii.  34. 


240       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

These  Pauline  ideas  cannot,  indeed,  be  said  to  be  inci- 
dental to  the  controlling  purpose  of  the  author,  but  his 
controlling  purpose  is  so  different  from  that  of  Paul  that 
his  employment  of  them  cannot  be  regarded  as  unquali- 
fiedly Pauline.  The  fundamental  distinction  between  this 
and  the  Pauline  Epistles  lies  in  the  apprehension  of  the 
relation  of  Judaism  and  Christianity.  To  Paul  Judaism 
was  preeminently  a  law  which  was  to  be  fulfilled,  while 
to  the  writer  of  Hebrews  it  is  a  body  of  ritual  ar- 
rangements intended  to  effect  communication  between 
Israel  and  God  and  culminating  in  the  priesthood.  In 
the  priesthood  and  not  in  the  law  consist  its  import- 
ance and  whatever  permanence  it  had.  In  the  priesthood 
too  is  the  point  of  contact  and  union  of  Judaism  and 
Christianity.  For  the  work  of  Christ  is  viewed  under  the 
conception  of  a  priesthood,  and  the  new  religion  which 
he  brought  is  a  new  institution  of  atonement  surpassing 
that  of  Judaism  and  put  into  effect  by  a  high-priest  infi- 
nitely superior  to  his  predecessors  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation. These  represented  a  transient  institution,  an 
economy  which  was  only  a  shadow  of  that  which  was  to 
come.  He  has  his  prototype  in  Melchisedek,  is  "  a  priest 
forever,"  and  having  entered  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
has  effected  an  everlasting  atonement.  The  means  by 
which  he  becomes  the  chief  of  redemption  are  his  suffer- 
ing and  death.  He  assumed  flesh  and  blood  "  that  through 
death  he  might  bring  to  naught  him  who  had  the  power 
of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil,  and  might  deliver  those  who, 
through  fear  of  death,  were  all  their  life-time  subject  to 
bondage."  *  Accordingly  God  "  prepared  a  body  "  for 
him,  that  by  the  sacrifice  of  it  he  might  do  away  with  the 
ancient  offerings  of  beasts,  and  effect  our  sanctification.  f 

*  Heb.  ii.  14,  15.  f  Heb.  x.  5-10. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     24! 

The  difference  between  this  point  of  view  and  that  of 
Paul  is  manifest.  He,  indeed,  conceived  the  death  of 
Christ  to  be  the  great  factor  in  redemption,  but  to  him 
Christ  was  the  "  man  from  heaven  "  who  as  a  representa- 
tive of  the  human  race  passively  received  the  curse  of  the 
law  in  his  death,  and  so  fulfilled  the  law  for  all.  Of  this, 
doctrine  there  is  no  trace  in  our  Epistle.  The  writer  of  it 
regards  Christ  not  as  the  passive  representative  sufferer,, 
but  as  the  active  high-priest  who  brings  his  holy  life  to 
God  in  obedience  and  patience  as  a  precious  offering,  and 
by  this  ethical  act  of  sacrifice  operates  upon  our  hearts 
for  their  purification  and  perfection,  and  opens  to  us 
admittance  to  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  to  complete  com- 
munion with  God.  The  high-priest  of  the  old  dispensa- 
tion was  required  to  enter  "  once  every  year "  into  the 
holy  of  holies  with  the  blood  of  beasts,  in  order  by  the 
sprinkling  of  blood  to  remove  the  guilt  of  the  people  and 
restore  the  broken  covenant  with  God.  But  the  fact  that 
this  act  of  atonement  must  be  forever  repeated  proved 
that  the  means  was  inadequate  and  ineffective  for  the 
purifying  of  the  worshipper.  Hence  there  was  need  of  a 
better  sacrifice  and  a  greater  high-priest.  This  high-priest 
is  Christ,  the  heavenly  Son  of  God,  whom  in  the  type 
Melchisedek  God  appointed  before  the  institution  of  the 
Levitical  priesthood  as  the  everlasting  high-priest  of  the 
new  dispensation.*  It  was  not  necessary  for  him,  like 
the  human  high-priests,  to  offer  a  sacrifice  for  his  own 
sins,  for  although  he  shared  in  our  weaknesses  and  liabil- 
ity to  temptation,  yet  as  the  superhuman  Son  of  God  he 

*  Heb.  ix.  7,  9,  13  ;  x.  i,  4.  "  Once  every  year,"  Philo  is  charged  with 
this  technical  error.  Did  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  derive  it  from  him  ?  The 
high-priest  entered  the  holy  of  holies  on  one  day  in  the  year  twice  according 
to  Levit.  xvi.  12-16,  according  to  the  Talmud  several  times. 


242        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

was  unstained  by  sin,  and  hence  could  offer  a  better  sac- 
rifice than  the  Levitical  priests.  "  For  if  the  blood  of 
goats  and  bulls,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  those 
who  have  been  defiled,  sanctify  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  by 
his  everlasting  spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God, 
purify  your  conscience  from  dead  works  for  the  worship 
of  the  living  God  !  "  *  Thus  while  Paul's  point  of  depart- 
ure for  his  doctrine  of  atonement  was  the  theory  of 
propitiation  and  satisfaction  which  was  held  by  the  Jew- 
ish theologians,  the  author  of  Hebrews  proceeds  from  the 
Old-Testament  sacrificial  ritual  regarded  as  a  symbolical 
prototype  of  the  higher  ethical-religious  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
Paul's  arraignment  of  Judaism  was  from  his  point  of  view 
directed  against  the  law  as  "weak  through  the  flesh,"  and 
ineffectual  for  righteousness.  The  author  of  this  Epistle 
also  has  his  charge  against  Judaism,  but  from  his  point 
of  view  the  charge  rests  against  the  sacrificial  system,  and 
he  declares  that  "  it  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  goats  should  take  away  sins."  f  Remaining  then,  in 
a  closer  contact  with  Judaism  than  Paul's  sharp  antago- 
nism to  the  law  permitted  him  to  maintain,  he  conceives 
of  a  better  purification  than  the  Levitical  annual  cleansing 
in  which  "  there  is  a  remembrance  of  sins  every  year."  \ 
Christ  with  his  own  blood  has  entered  once  for  all  into 
the  true  sanctuary  of  heaven,  and  effected  an  everlasting 
salvation,  the  real  putting  away  of  sins,  "  perfecting  by 
one  offering  forever  those  who  are  sanctified,"  so  that  the 
ancient  word  of  prophecy  is  fulfilled  :  "  I  will  put  my  laws 
into  their  hearts,  and  in  their  minds  I  will  write  them, 
and  their  sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more." 
For  "where  there  is  remission  of  sins  there  is  no  longer 
*  Heb.  x.  14.  f  Heb.  x.  4.  \  Heb.  x.  3. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     243 

offering  for  sin."  *  The  great  sacrifice  on  the  cross  is 
regarded  as  removing  the  consciousness  of  guilt  in  men 
which  separates  them  from  God  and  putting  them  into 
that  condition  of  holiness  which  corresponds  to  Christ's 
own  perfection.  This  work  of  the  great  high-priest, 
begun  on  earth,  is  continued  in  heaven,  where  he  has 
entered  into  the  celestial  sanctuary  and  still  makes  inter- 
cession. Thus  in  this  Epistle  the  death  of  Christ  is 
conceived  as  effecting  essentially  the  same  result  as  in  the 
teaching  of  Paul.  But  while  Paul  saw  in  the  sacrifice  on 
the  cross  the  satisfaction  of  the  law  or  of  the  divine  right- 
eousness, this  writer  entirely  ignores  that  fundamental 
idea  of  the  apostle's  and  regards  the  great  offering  from 
an  ethical  point  of  view  as  immediately  related  to  the 
consciousness  of  men  and  bringing  about  purification 
from  sin  as  a  moral-religious  result,  f  We  find  here  too 
the  unpauline  idea  of  a  completion  of  the  work  of  Christ 
in  the  upper,  heavenly  sanctuary,  and  miss  the  great 
Pauline  doctrines  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  the 

*  Heb.  x.  17,  18. 

f  The  doctrine  that  we  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  Christ  is, 
indeed,  expressed  in  the  Epistle,  and  the  writer  approaches  very  near  the 
Pauline  thought  of  a  representative  suffering  of  the  legal  penalty  when  he 
applies  as  types  to  the  death  of  Christ  the  Old-Testament  sacrifices  of  atone- 
ment which  probably  rest  upon  the  idea  of  substitutionat  offering.  Hence, 
Christ  is  called  a  merciful  and  faithful  high-priest  to  make  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  the  people  (ii.  17)  and  the  mediator  of  a  new  covenant  by  whose 
death  is  secured  "  redemption  from  the  transgressions  under  the  first  cove- 
nant "  (ix.  15),  since  "  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  " 
(ix.  22).  Jesus  indeed  "  tasted  death  for  every  one  "  (ii.  9)  ;  but  instead  of 
the  Pauline  ideas  expressed  in  Rom.  iii.  25  and  Gal.  iii.  13  concerning  his 
suffering  to  manifest  the  righteousness  of  God  and  bear  the  curse  of  the  law, 
it  is  said  that  the  object  of  his  death  was  to  "  take  away  sin,"  and  to  be 
himself  made  perfect  through  suffering,  together  with  the  quite  incongruous 
remark  that  the  testator  must  die  in  order  to  put  the  covenant  in  force. 


244       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

dying  with   Christ  and  the  rising  with   him  to   newness 
of  life. 

Instead  of  accepting  the  Pauline  doctrine  that  the 
death  of  Christ  removed  the  curse  of  the  law,  the  writer 
of  Hebrews  conceives  of  the  effect  of  the  sacrifice  on  the 
cross  as  a  "  bringing  to  naught  of  him  who  had  the  power 
of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil."  *  To  Paul  death  came  into 
the  world  through  sin,  and  in  his  theology  the  Devil  has 
no  conspicuous  place.  The  introduction  of  Satan  as  the 
personal  representative  of  the  power  of  death  in  this  Epis- 
tle appears  to  indicate  the  beginning  of  the  development 
of  the  Christian  mythology  in  which  the  Prince  of  the 
realm  of  evil  was  supposed  to  have  certain  rights  over  the 
souls  of  men  by  reason  of  Adam's  transgressions.  For 
the  Pauline  teaching  that  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin  was 
overcome  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  who  in  his  person  as 
a  representative  of  the  human  race  suffered  it  for  all  men, 
this  writer  substitutes  the  mythological  conception  of  the 
overthrow  of  the  Devil,  who  as  the  original  author  of  sin 
is  regarded  as  the  King  of  death,  f  The  writer  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  favorably  inclined  towards  the  Pau- 
line metaphysical  abstractions,  among  which  was  the  idea 
of  the  law  as  a  power  whose  demands  God  must  recognize 
and  satisfy.  Accordingly  we  may  suppose  that  the  sim- 
ple, concrete  personality  of  Satan  commended  itself  to 
him  as  the  representative  of  death  who  was  "  set  at 
nought "  by  the  great  sacrifice  of  Christ  which  was  con- 
ceived as  breaking  his  power,  since  it  was  a  means  of 
snatching  men  from  the  grasp  of  death  by  freeing  them 

*  Heb.  ii.  14,  Sza/SoAoS. 

f  There  is  perhaps  here  a  trace  of  the  influence  of  the  book  of  Wisdom 
upon  the  writer.  See  Wisdom  ii.  24  :  "By  the  envy  of  the  Devil  [dia- 
fio\ov\  came  death  into  the  world,  and  those  experience  it  who  belong  to 
him." 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     245 

from  sin.  This  naive  popular  mythology,  whose  origin 
is  easily  traced,  may  very  well  have  satisfied  an  age  which 
was  not  capable  of  comprehending,  much  less  of  attain- 
ing to,  the  "  monstrous  moral  enormity  "  of  the  mediaeval 
theology  which  regarded  the  justice  of  God  as  requiring 
satisfaction  and  finding  it  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ — a 
doctrine  which  "  mingles  its  fierce  lights  of  expiation  and 
its  massive  shadows  of  despair  with  the  whole  theology 
of  Christendom." 

Another  important  deviation  of  the  doctrine  of  this 
Epistle  from  the  Pauline  thought  appears  in  its  teaching 
regarding  faith.  Faith  is  assigned,  indeed,  no  unimpor- 
tant part  in  the  Christian  life ;  it  is  necessary  for  those 
who  hear  the  word  in  order  to  "  profit  "  ;  it  is  a  profession 
to  be  "  held  fast  "  ;  it  is  a  "  foundation  "  to  be  laid.*  But 
we  find  nothing  here  of  Paul's  apprehension  of  it  as  a 
mystic  union  with  Christ  whereby  his  death  and  resurrec- 
tion are  inwardly  appropriated.  The  great  Pauline  oppo- 
sition of  faith  and  works  is  here  retired  into  the  back- 
ground, and  instead  of  justification  by  faith  without 
works,  we  read  of  Christ  as  an  example  who  "  learned 
obedience  by  what  he  suffered,  and,  being  perfected, 
became  the  author  of  everlasting  salvation  to  all  who 
obey  him"  f  Unlike  Paul  the  author  does  not  emphasize 
faith  in  Christ,  but  his  conception  of  it  is  vague  and  gen- 
eral, and  corresponds  with  the  conception  of  Philo  as  an 
ideal  disposition  of  the  emotions  in  opposition  to  the 
sensuous,  fleshly  tendency,  in  particular  as  confidence  in 
God's  promises  and  support.  Christ  is  rather  the  proto- 
type than  the  object  of  faith,  and  as  he  "  for  the  joy  that 
was  set  before  him  endured  the  cross,  despising  the 
shame,"  so  we  ought  to  "  run  with  perseverance  the  race 

*  Heb.  iv.  2,  vi.  i,  x.  23.  \  Heb  v.  9, 


246       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

that  is  set  before  us,  looking  to  him  as  the  author  and 
perfecter  of  our  faith,"  *  that  is,  as  Jesus  by  his  example 
has  given  us  a  demonstration  of  faith  even  to  his  death 
on  the  cross,  so  we  ought  to  make  that  virtue  ours  "with 
perseverance."  This  is  quite  unpauline  ;  but  the  writer 
indicates  another  departure.  from  his  great  predecessor  in 
teaching  that  faith  is  to  be  directed  to  the  possessions  of 
the  unseen  future  world.  It  'is  sententiously  declared  to 
be  "  the  assurance  of  things  hoped  for,  a  conviction  of 
things  not  seen."f  It  is  the  conviction  of  the  reality  of 
the  upper  world,  the  assurance  that  what  is  hoped  for  in 
respect  to  the  promised  reconciliation  with  God  and  par- 
ticipation in  the  glory  of  Christ  will  surely  be  realized. 
As  it  was  remarked  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  the  Pauline 
terminology  regarding  justification  by  faith  is  avoided, 
and  instead  of  the  Pauline  "to  be  justified,"  and  "to  be 
accounted  righteous  through  faith,"  we  have  here  "  to 
have  the  testimony  that  he  pleased  God,"  "  to  obtain  a 
good  report  through  faith,"  \  and  even  the  expression, 
"  wrought  righteousness  through  faith."  §  Evidently 
righteousness  is  not  conceived  by  this  writer  as  by  Paul 
to  be  a  gift  of  God  received  by  faith,  whereby  the  be- 
liever is  liberated  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  reason  of 
the  atoning,  propitiatory  death  of  Christ,  but  as  a  pious 
disposition  which  is  confirmed  by  obedience  in  action 
and  suffering,  and  constitutes  the  essence  of  faith  itself. 
The  tendency  of  the  writer  is  indicated  by  the  use  which 
he  makes  of  a  catchword  of  Paul's  taken  from  Habakkuk 
ii.  4:  "The  just  shall  live  by  his  faith."  Paul  renders 

*  Heb.  xii.  2.  f  Heb.  xi.  i. 

\  Heb.  xi.  4,  5,  39,  juaprvpetdQai  dinaiov  eivai,  naprvpeZiQaa.  did 


§  Heb.  xi.  33,  epya&GQai  did 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     247 

this :  "  The  just  by  faith  shall  live,"  that  is,  he  who  is 
righteous  through  faith  shall  have  part  in  the  Messianic 
life  at  the  Parousia.  But  our  writer  understands  the 
words  in  their  original  import :  "  The  righteous  man  will 
preserve  his  life  as  a  result  of  his  faith,"  his  trusting 
endurance,  which  is  the  opposite  of  "drawing  back."* 
There  could  be  no  place,  then,  in  our  writer's  thought 
for  the  Pauline  opposites,  faith  and  works,  faith  and  the 
law ;  for  a  faith  which,  like  that  conceived  by  him,  is  the 
direction  of  the  human  will,  in  conformity  with  the  will 
of  God,  includes  in  itself  works,  or  the  fulfilment  of  the 
moral  law.  While  for  Paul  the  essence  of  faith  was  a 
religious  receptivity,  a  devotion  of  the  life  to  Christ, 
and  a  mystic  union  with  him,  for  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
it  is,  in  part,  a  hope  in  the  promised  possessions  of  the 
future  world,  and  in  part  a  moral  power  of  obediencer 
patience,  and  endurance,  which  constitute  the  disposition 
acceptable  to  God. 

The  Epistle  is  poor  in  eschatological  features.  The 
writer  does  not  employ  apocalyptical  imagery,  and  says 
nothing  of  a  scenic  general  judgment  and  a  millennial 
reign  of  Christ.  "  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  "  and 
"  everlasting  judgment "  are  mentioned  among  those 
"  first  principles  "  which  he  admonishes  his  readers  to 
leave,  as  apparently  unimportant,  that  they  may  "  press 
on  to  perfection."  f  That  Christ  is  to  come  again  ap- 
pears to  be  a  doctrine  accepted  by  his  readers.  He  ex- 
horts them  that  they  excite  to  love  and  good  works,  not 
forsaking  the  assembling  of  themselves  together ;  "  and 
so  much  the  more,  as  ye  see  the  day  [of  the  Parousia] 
approaching."^:  Mention  of  the  judgment  and  the  sec- 

*  Gal.  iii.  n.  ;  Heb.  x.  38.     See  Meyer  on  the  passages. 

f  Heb.  vi.  2.  \  Heb,  x.  24,  25. 


248        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ond  appearance  of  Christ  is  vague  and  evidently  inci- 
dental, as  in  the  words :  "  As  it  is  appointed  unto  men 
once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judgment;  so  also  Christ 
having  been  once  offered  up  to  bear  the  sins  of  many  will 
appear  the  second  time  without  sin  for  the  salvation  of 
those  who  are  waiting  for  him."'  Since  "  those  who  are 
waiting  for  him  "  can  only  be  the  believers,  the  fortune 
of  unbelievers  at  the  Parousia  is  left  undetermined.  This 
is,  however,  in  accordance  with  the  vagueness  of  the 
author's  eschatology  in  general.  It  is  evident  that  he 
attached  small  importance  to  such  matters  as  "  baptism  " 
"  resurrection,"  and  "judgment,"  which  to  him  were  ele- 
mentary f  in  comparison  with  his  doctrine  of  the  perfect, 
heavenly  priesthood  of  Christ.  With  respect  to  the  lapse 
of  believers  the  doctrine  of  Paul  receives  a  very  emphatic 
supplement.  For  those  who  "  willingly  sin  "  after  they 
have  "  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  no 
longer  remaineth  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  but  a  certain  fearful 
looking-for  of  judgment,"  etc.  \  These  may  abandon 
hope,  "  For  it  is  impossible  that  those  who  have  once 
been  enlightened  and  have  tasted  the  heavenly  gift,  etc., 
and  have  fallen  away  should  be  again  renewed  to  repent- 
ance, since  they  crucify  to  themselves  the  Son  of  God 
afresh  and  put  him  to  open  shame. "§  While  the  saying 
regarding  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  has  some  an- 
alogy with  this,  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  is 
the  hopelessness  of  the  condition  of  believers  who  may 
have  fallen- from  their  allegiance  so  definitely  and  un- 
qualifiedly set  forth.  That  this  dogmatic  assertion  is  not 
in  accord  with  the  case  of  Peter,  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus, 
with  any  known  psychological  principles,  and  with  the 

*  Heb.  ix.  27,  28.  t  <>  "?5  (IPX 

\  Heb.  x.  26,  27.  §  Heb.  vi.  4-6. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     249 

facts  of  experience,  could  not  have  affected  the  tone  of 
this  writer,  who  perhaps  thought  that  seventy  and  an 
awful  warning  were  the  only  means  of  obviating  an  im- 
pending lapse  of  his  readers. 

2. — THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  an  important  docu- 
ment of  the  deutero-Pauline  literature,  and  may  be  dis- 
cussed as  to  its  doctrinal  contents  independently  of 
the  question  whether  it  contains  a  genuine  Pauline  nu- 
cleus. It  was  occasioned  apparently  by  the  appearance 
among  the  believers  in  Colossae  of  certain  phases  of 
belief  which  were  a  departure  from  the  true  Christian 
doctrine,  but  the  exact  nature  of  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
determine.  Perhaps  the  tendencies  which  the  Epistle 
combats  denoted  the  beginnings  of  the  Gnosticism  which 
later  played  so  important  a  part  in  Christian  history. 
That  the  persons  addressed  were  gentile  Christians  ap- 
pears probable  from  several  allusions,  particularly  from 
the  words :  "  And  to  you  who  were  dead  in  your  tres- 
passes and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh  hath  He 
given  life  together  with  him  [Christ],  having  forgiven  us 
all  our  trespasses."  *  Over  against  the  erroneous  doc- 
trines of  his  readers  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  sets  the,  to 
him,  true  idea  of  Christ's  person  and  the  Christian  knowl- 
edge which  is  better  than  the  false  gnosis  to  which  they 
were  inclined.  As  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  so  here 
this  Christological  doctrine  is  laid  down  at  the  outset  and 
made  fundamental  to  the  main  purpose  which  is  to  com- 
bat the  erroneous  views  held  by  the  persons  addressed. 
The  Christology  is  also  a  further  development  of  that  of 
Hebrews,  whose  writer  the  author  follows  in  the  appre- 

*Col.  ii.  13.      Cf.  i.  13,  21. 


250       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

hension  of  the  relation  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  not, 
indeed,  precisely  as  type  and  antitype,  but  as  unreal  and 
unessential  and  real  and  essential,  as  shadow  and  sub- 
stance. From  the  point  of  view  of  the  absoluteness  of 
Christianity  he  proceeds  to  the  establishment  of  the  ab- 
soluteness of  the  person  of  Christ.  Like  the  author  of 
the  former  Epistle  he  avoids  the  application  of  the  term 
Logos  to  Christ,  and  although  his  Christology  shows  re- 
semblances to  that  of  Paul  in  some  points,  yet  on  the 
whole  it  goes  beyond  the  apostle's,  and  applies  to  Christ 
predicates  which  in  Philo  are  applied  to  the  Logos.  It 
is  a  step  nearer  than  the  Christology  of  Hebrews  to  the 
more  developed  Logos-idea  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  yet  it 
keeps  close  to  Paul  in  representing  Christ  as  in  intimate 
connection  with  the  world.  When  the  author  calls  Christ 
"  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  and  "  the  first-born  of 
the  whole  creation,"  *  we  are  reminded  of  the  Pauline 
expressions,  "the  image  of  God,"  and  "the  first-born 
among  many  brethren  "  ;  f  but  the  epithet  "  invisible  " 
suggests  Philo's  idea  of  the  Logos  as  the  revelator  or  visi- 
ble copy  of  the  hidden  God,  and  the  term  "  first-born  of 
the  whole  creation  "  reminds  us  of  his  doctrine  that  the 
Logos  was  in  distinction  from  the  world  the  first-born 
Son  of  God.  But  the  writer  carries  still  further  his  exal- 
tation and  idealization  of  Christ  in  the  words :  "  For  in 
him  were  created  all  things,  those  in  the  heavens  and  those 
on  the  earth,  the  visible  and  the  invisible,  whether  thrones 
or  dominions  or  principalities  or  powers,  all  things  have 
been  created  through  him  and  for  him  ;  and  he  is  beyond 
all  things,  and  in  him  all  things  subsist."  \  This  surpasses 

*  Col.  i.  15.  f  2  Cor.  iv.  4  ;  Rom.  viii.  29. 

\  Col.  i.  16,  17.  "In  him,"  v.  16  ;  kv  avr<a  is  equivalent  to  dt  avrov 
with  the  additional  shade  of  meaning  that  the  things  created  by  him  have 
their  ground  in  him — that  is,  "in  him  all  things  subsist,"  v.  17. 


THE  DE  U  TERO-PA  ULINE  IN  TERPRE  TA  T1ONS.     2  5  I 

the  Pauline  teaching  that  Christ  was  the  agent  of  creation 
through  whom  all  things  were  made,  since  he  here  becomes 
the  end  of  creation  "  for  "  whom  all  things  were  made  and 
the  indwelling  cosmic  principle  in  whom  all  things  subsist, 
the  bond  and  supporter  of  the  universe.  This  doctrine  is 
as  remote  from  the  Pauline  conception  of  Christ  as  "  the 
man  from  heaven,"  as  it  is  akin  to  Philo's  teaching  that 
the  cosmos  was  "  founded  in  the  divine  Logos,"  that  the 
Logos  is  "  the  bond  of  all  things  "  and  "  holds  and  binds 
all  the  parts  together  and  prevents  their  dissolution,"  and 
that  it  is  the  principle  sustaining  and  directing  the  totality 
of  existence.* 

Thence  the  author  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  office  of 
Christ  with  reference  to  the  work  of  redemption  in  terms 
corresponding  to  the  exalted  rank  already  assigned  him. 
He  is  the  head  of  the  church,  since  he  is  the  beginning, 
that  he  may  be  in  all  things  preeminent  ;  "  for  God  was 
pleased  that  in  him  all  the  fulness  should  dwell,  and  by 
him  to  reconcile  all  things  to  Himself,  having  made  peace 
through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him,  I  say,  whether  the 
things  on  earth  or  those  in  the  heavens."  f  This  denotes 
an  advance  in  the  exaltation  of  Christ  beyond  Paul  and 
the  author  of  Hebrews,  neither  of  whom  conceived  that 
in  him  "  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  \ 
The  heavenly  or  archetypal  "  man  "  of  Paul  might,  indeed, 
be  conceived  to  be  "  the  image  of  God,"  but  not  the 
embodiment  of  "  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead."  We  are 
rather  here  again  reminded  of  Philo,  who  conceived  the 
Logos  as  the  "place"  or  essence  of  the  divine  energies, 
whom  "  God  himself  has  filled  entirely  with  immaterial 


ev  rep  Qeicphoycp; 
ditdvTGor  ;  <5vrexei  \X6yoS\  rd  HEprj  itdvra,  etc.,  Pfleiderer. 
Col.  i.  18-20. 
Col.  ii.  9,  Ttdv  TO  TfkrfpcajLicx  QeorrfroS  G 


252        THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

powers." '  It  may  be  left  undecided  whether  "  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead "  is  conceived  to  have  dwelt  in 
Christ  necessarily  and  from  the  beginning,  or  from  the  time 
of  his  resurrection  and  exaltation,  but  there  can  be  little 
doubt  from  the  abrupt  way  in  which  the  writer  introduces 
the  word  pleroma^  fulness,  in  the  declaration  in  question 
that  the  term  was  known  by  him  to  be  current  among  his 
readers,  and  accordingly  that  he  knew  them  to  be  influ- 
enced by  Gnostic  speculations,  and  wished  to  counteract 
these  by  teaching  that  all  the  primal  powers  which  the 
Gnostics  assumed  in  the  pleroma  dwelt  bodily  in  Christ, 
since  in  him  was  the  pleroma  of  the  Godhead.  Since  the 
use  of  this  term  cannot  be  shown  among  the  Jewish 
Theosophists,  the  Gnosticism  which  the  writer  had  in 
view  must  have  been  later  than  the  time  of  Paul.  Whether 
the  Gnostic  pleroma  was  supposed  to  be  in  discord  and  to 
need  reconciliation  or  no  may  not  be  clear,  but  it  is  evident 
that  a  new  and  unpauline  idea  of  the  extent  of  Christ's 
reconciling  function  is  here  advanced  by  this  writer  when 
he  includes  in  it  "  the  things  in  the  heavens."  According 
to  Paul  the  work  of  Christ  was  limited  to  the  human  race, 
of  which  as  "  the  man  from  heaven  "  he  was  conceived  to 
be  the  head  and  atoning  representative.  There  appears 
furthermore  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  Gnostic  idea  of  the 
distinction  of  the  world  of  spirit  and  the  world  of  matter, 
in  the  declaration  that  in  Christ  were  created  "  the  things 
visible  and  invisible  "  ;  and  the  "  dominions,  principalities, 
and  powers  "  which  are  said  to  have  been  created  in  him 
were  according  to  Irenaeus  and  Epiphanius  current  Gnos- 
tic terms4  To  declare  that  all  these  things  were  created 

*  See  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  ii.  p.  162. 

\  it\.rjpGOH(X,   a  Gnostic  term    employed  to  express   the  totality  of   the 
primal  powers  or  aeons  included  in  the  divine  Being. 

\  Iren.,  Adv.  Haeres.,  i.  24,  i  ;  Epiph.,  Haeres.,  xxiii.  I. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     2$$ 

in  Christ,  that  he  is  "  before  "  them  all,  and  that  they  all 
"  subsist "  in  him  is  the  author's  way  of  overcoming  the 
Gnostic  tendencies  of  his  readers.  Especially  effective  in 
this  regard  must  have  appeared  to  him  the  declaration 
that  on  the  cross  Christ  "  having  disarmed  principalities 
and  powers  [orders  of  spiritual  beings  according  to  the 
Gnostics]  made  a  public  show  of  them,  and  led  them 
captive  in  triumph."  *  This  conception  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  declaration  that  in  the  death  of  Christ  "  the 
hand-writing  in  ordinances  which  was  against  us  He  hath 
taken  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross,"  is  significant 
as  well  for  what  it  expresses  as  for  what  it  omits.  We  do 
not  find  here  the  genuinely  Pauline  idea  of  the  death  of 
Christ  as  a  representative  satisfaction  of  the  law  rendered 
to  the  divine  justice;  but  rather  as  in  Hebrews  it  is 
taught  that  in  his  death  Christ  "  brought  to  naught  him 
who  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil,"  so  here 
he  is  represented  as  robbing  the  spirits  of  evil  of  their 
power,  supposed  to  be  represented  by  a  bond  of  the  law 
which  they  held  against  sinful  men  and  leading  them 
captive  in  triumph,  having  "  nailed  to  the  cross,"  that  is, 
annulled  in  his  death,  their  claim  to  the  souls  of  men. 
Evidently  the  abstract  "  curse  of  the  law  "  was  not  easily 
understood  by  the  gentile  Christians,  and  so  in  place  of 
the  original  Pauline  doctrine  of  atonement  there  may 
very  likely  have  been  developed  the  conception  of  a  con- 
flict of  Christ  with  demonic  powers,  and  their  overthrow 
by  virtue  of  his  great  sacrifice.  All  this  is  evidently  far 
removed  from  Paul's  great  mystic  doctrine  of  an  appro- 
priation of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  by  faith.  There  appears 
also  to  be  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  this 

*  Col.  ii.  15.     Paul  has,  indeed,  in  Rom.  viii.  38, 
but  nowhere  such  a  Christology  as  appears  in  this  Epistle. 


254       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Epistle  to  apply  the  Gospel  to  the  exigencies  of  the 
Church  at  Colossae,  by  exalting  Christianity  to  the  chief 
place  among  "  mysteries."  *  A  secret  mystery-worship 
may  have  been  one  of  the  erroneous  tendencies  which  he 
wished  to  counteract,  as  well  as  the  inclination  to  worship 
angels  and  put  Christ  on  an  equality  with  celestial  spirit- 
ual beings.  We  find  here  also  another  doctrine  which  is 
hardly  reconcilable  with  the  genuine  Pauline  teaching. 
To  Paul  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  an  all-sufficient  act  of 
atonement,  and  he  could  not  without  the  greatest  incon- 
gruity have  spoken  of  filling  up  in  his  sufferings  in  the 
flesh  that  which  is  wanting  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  on 
behalf  of  the  Church.  f  In  combating  the  false  gnosis  of 
his  readers,  the  author  appears  to  have  made  their  ideas 
to  some  extent  his  own  without  a  conscious  acceptance  of 
their  errors.  His  teaching  concerning  the  reconciliation 
of  "  the  things  in  heaven  "  through  Christ  shows  the  im- 
pression which  Gnostic  ideas  had  made  upon  him.  In  his 
doctrine  of  redemption  there  are  other  traits  which  do 
not  belong  to  the  Pauline  interpretation  of  Christianity, 
especially  in  the  passage  :  "  Who  rescued  us  from  the 
empire  of  darkness,  and  transferred  us  into  the  kingdom 
of  His  beloved  Son,  in  whom  we  have  our  redemption, 
the  forgiveness  of  our  sins."  \  "  The  empire  of  darkness  " 
doubtless  refers  to  the  non-Christian  world  as  supposed  to 
be  ruled  by  demons  §  from  whose  sway  Gnosticism  would 
deliver  men  by  means  of  ascetic  practices.  This  is  quite 
remote  from  the  Pauline  redemption  from  the  curse  of  the 


*  Col.  i.  27  ;  ii.  2  ;  iv.  3.  Paul,  indeed,  speaks  kv  nvtirTjpiw  to  the 
"  perfect,"  but  to  this  writer  the  Gospel  is  altogether  a  "  mystery." 

f  Col.  i.  24.  \  Col.  i.  13. 

§  See  Eph.  ii.  2,  "  According  to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  the 
prince  of  the  powers  of  the  air,"  etc. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     2$$ 

law,  from  death,  and  from  the  wrath  of  God.  As  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  so  here  redemption  is  regarded 
as  consisting  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  while  the  Pauline 
representative  atonement  and  the  righteousness  "  ac- 
counted "  by  reason  of  faith  disappear  from  view.  But 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  an  idea  which  has  no  distinct 
expression  in  Paul's  Epistles.  There  is,  however,  in  this 
Epistle  a  point  of  contact  with  Paul  which  is  wanting 
in  Hebrews  in  the  doctrine  of  being  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism  and  rising  with  him  from  the  dead.* 

3. THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  shows  so  marked  a  depend- 
ence on  that  to  the  Colossians  that  the  opinion  that  it  is 
a  working  over  of  the  latter  appears  to  be  well  supported. 
It  was  evidently  written  to  counteract  certain  tendencies 
which  indicate  the  beginnings  of  Gnostic  errors  which  were 
probably  different  in  detail  from  those  combated  in  the 
former  Epistle.  There  appears  to  be  indicated  a  tendency 
to  heathen  libertinism,  to  a  depreciation  of  Judaism,  and  to 
mystery-worship,  to  counteract  which  the  writer  lays  stress 
upon  the  moral  requirements  of  Christianity  not  without 
a  predilection  for  certain  Jewish  points  of  view.  Judaism 
appears  to  be  brought  into  closer  relations  with  Chris- 
tianity than  is  consistent  with  the  original  Pauline  view 
of  the  matter,  when  the  gentiles  addressed  are  said  to  have 
been  formerly  "without  Christ,"  since  they  were  "aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  and  strangers  to  the 
covenants  of  the  promise."  Unpauline  too  is  the  idea 
that  Christ  in  his  death  "  broke  down  the  middle  wall  of 
partition  between  "  Jews  and  gentiles, f  not  less  than  the 

*  Col.  ii.  12.  f  Eph.  ii.  12-15. 


256        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

expression,  "  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  In  the 
Christology  of  the  Epistle  is  observable  a  tendency  toward 
the  monotheistic  point  of  view  in  the  avoidance  of  the 
doctrine  of  Colossians  that  Christ  had  a  part  in  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  although  expression  is  given  to  the  idea 
that  in  him  all  things  subsist.  The  mediation  of  Christ 
has  relation  to  the  Christian  economy,  but  antedates  his 
earthly  manifestation,  so  that  we  have  our  "  inheritance  " 
in  him  "  the  Beloved,"  "  being  predestinated  according 
to  the  purpose  of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the 
counsel  of  His  own  will."*  While  Christ  is  here  as  in 
Colossians  regarded  as  the  reconciler  of  "things  in  heaven/' 
but  not  as  disarming  principalities  and  powers  and  leading 
them  captive  in  triumph,  he  is  said  to  have  been  exalted 
after  his  resurrection,  apd  "  seated  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  in  the  heavenly  regions  far  above  all  rule  and  author- 
ity and  power  and  dominion  and  every  name  that  is  named 
not  only  in  this  world  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come."t 
After  the  manner  of  Paul  the  author  indeed  regards 
salvation  as  "  by  grace  "  and  as  "  the  gift  of  God,"  but 
the  Pauline  conceptions  of  justification  by  faith  and  of  the 
opposition  of  faith  and  works  are  foreign  to  him.  As  a 
Hellenistic  thinker  he  could  not  entertain  these  Jewish 
ideas  and  that  of  a  representative  atonement.  He  accord- 
ingly says  nothing  of  Christ's  death  as  a  bearing  of  the 
curse  of  the  law,  but  rather  sees  in  it  an  offering  accept- 
able to  God  for  the  sake  of  the  Church.  The  effect  of 
Christ's  ethical  act  of  sacrifice  is  the  purifying  dedication 
of  the  Church  to  a  nuptial  union  with  him  through  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  Having  been  dead  in  trespasses, 
believers  are  made  alive  with  him.  The  expressions  em- 
ployed in  describing  this  result,  "  dead  in  trespasses," 
*  Eph.  i.  6,  ii.  f  Eph.  i.  20  f. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"made  alive  in  Christ,"  "  forgiveness  of  sins,"  "to  be 
brought  near,"  belong  to  the  later  Paulinism  of  Hebrews 
and  Colossians  and  not  to  the  genuine  Epistles  of  the 
apostle  (Heb.  vi.  I,  vii.  19,  ix.  22,  x.  18  ;  Col.  i.  14,  ii.  13). 
Here  as  in  Colossians  are  wanting  the  specifically  Pauline 
expressions  "to  declare  righteous,"  and  "  righteousness  of 
God."  The  disappearance  of  some  of  the  phases  of  the 
Pauline  thought,  among  which  may  be  noted  that  of 
"  accounting  "  one  righteous  through  faith,  is  as  striking  as 
is  the  prominence  given  to  others  which  were  naturally 
more  akin  to  Hellenistic  modes  of  thinking,  such  as  being 
"raised  up  with  him,"  "life  with  Christ,"  etc.,  as  well  as 
to  the  unpauline  idea  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

In  the  Christology  of  Colossians  the  emphasis  is  laid 
upon  Christ  as  the  "  fulness  of  the  Godhead  "  and  the 
reconciler  of  the  things  in  heaven  and  the  things  on  the 
earth.  But  in  Ephesians  the  mission  of  Christ  is  conceived 
with  especial  reference  to  the  establishment  of  a  united 
Church  by  a  reconciliation  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  par- 
tition wall  between  which  two  parties  he  is  said  to  have 
removed  by  his  death.*  In  the  former  Epistle  Christo- 

*  Eph.  ii.  14.  The  opinion  appears  to  be  well  grounded  which  regards, 
the  Christology  of  this  writer  as  a  development  of  that  of  Paul.  The  idea  of 
preexistence  is  common  to  both,  but  Paul  had  no  conception  of  a  preexis- 
tent  Christ  in  whom  were  included  by  a  divine  predestination  all  who  should 
belong  to  him,  so  that  he  becomes  an  ideal  representative  of  the  Church,  the 
personified  idea  of  Christendom  in  whom  believers  were  chosen  ".before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  "  (i.  4-14).  The  Christology  of  the  Epistle  indi- 
cates a  tendency  toward  the  more  developed  Johannine  conceptions,  particu- 
larly in  the  teaching  that  Christ  "  descended"  to  the  earth,  and  that  "he 
who  descended  is  the  same  as  he  who  ascended"  (iv.  9  f,  cf.  John  iii.  13). 
The  ascending  of  Christ  "  in  order  that  he  may  fill  all  things  "  reminds  us 
of  Colossians.  In  fact,  the  Christology  of  the  two  Epistles  is  substantially 
the  same,  but  while  in  Colossians  the  prevailing  interest  in  the  exaltation  of 
Christ  is  directed  against  an  unchristian  worship  of  angels,  in  Ephesians  the 
17 


258        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

logical  speculation  reached  its  height  in  the  conception  of 
Christ  as  the  pleroma  of  Deity,  while  in  the  latter  the 
Church  as  the  body  of  Christ  is  his  "  fulness,"  "  the  pleroma 
of  him  [Christ]  who  filled  all  with  all."  *  The  idea  of  the 
Church  as  the  mystical  "  body  of  Christ,"  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  two  Epistles,f  is  not  Pauline,  but  was  prob- 
ably suggested  by  the  words  of  Paul  that  "  Christ  is  the 
head  of  the  man,"  and  that  "  we  though  many  form  one 
body  in  Christ."  \  But  Christ  is  not  here  conceived  as 
one  member  of  the  body,  or  the  head,  but  the  Spirit 
which  animates  the  body,  for  Paul  evidently  did  not 
think  of  the  man,  as  the  body  of  Christ,  of  the  wife  as  the 
body  of  the  man,  and  of  Christ  as  the  body  of  God.  But 
the  writer  of  Ephesians  appears  to  draw  such  a  conclusion 
from  the  conception  of  Christ  as  the  head  of  the  Church, 
or  Christ  and  the  Church  as  constituting  an  organic  unity, 
when  he  enjoins  upon  husbands  the  love  of  their  wives 
as  their  own  bodies.  §  The  Church  as  the  "fulness"  of 
Christ  or  the  realization  of  his  nature  in  a  human  expres- 
sion is  regarded  in  its  growth  as  "  the  building  up  of  his 
body."  All  the  members  animated  by  the  "  head,"  "well 
put  together  and  compacted,"  "  grow  up  in  all  things 
unto  him."  ||  There  appears  thus  to  be  attached  to  the 

motive  is  to  bring  him  as  a  cosmic  principle  into  the  closest  possible  relation 
to  the  Church.  He  gave  himself  up  for  the  Church,  and  in  his  preexistent 
state  forsook  his  Father  for  its  sake  (v.  3r,  32). 

*  Eph.  i.  23,  iv.  13.  This  was  evidently  written  with  reference  to  the 
Gnostic  idea  of  the  TtXrjpoo^a,  "  the  filled,"  a  term  employed  for  the  super- 
sensible world  as  opposed  to  the  material  world  or  the  Kevaona,  "  the 
empty."  It  is  probable  that  the  writer  thought  that  he  was  refuting  Gnos- 
ticism on  its  own  grounds  and  with  its  own  terminology  when  he  declared 
Christ  to  be  the  one  who  " filleth  all  with  all." 

f  Col.  i.  18,  24;  Eph.  i.  23,  iv.  12,  16,  v.  23. 

\  i  Cor.  xi.  3  ;  Rom.  xii.  5.     Cf.  I  Cor.  xii.  27. 

§  Eph.  v.  28,  I  Eph.  iv.  12,  15,  16.     Cf.  Col.  ii.  19. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS. 

pleroma  the  idea  of  an  increase  whose  result  is  that  "  we 
all  attain  to  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  the  knowledge 
\epignosis\  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  a  full-grown  man,  to  the 
measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."  *  "  The 
building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ  "  is  said  to  be  effected 
by  the  agency  of  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors, 
and  teachers,  to  each  one  of  whom  is  given  grace  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ  who  when  he 
ascended  on  high  "  gave  gifts  to  men."  f  In  this 
teaching  of  the  gift  of  "  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation  "  by  which  "  the  eyes  of  the  mind  are 
enlightened  "  there  is  evidently  an  approximation  to  the 
later  doctrine  of  the  fourth  Gospel  regarding  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  there  conceived  as  sent  by  Christ  for  the 
further  illumination  of  his  followers.  J 

The  Epistle  has  a  mythology  well  developed  in  the 
direction  of  demonology.  The  readers  are  admonished 
to  put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God  that  they  may  be  able 
to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  Devil ;  for  the  conflict 
which  is  to  be  waged  is  not  against  flesh  and  blood,  but 
against  the  Evil  One  who  shoots  "  fiery  darts  "  and  against 
a  whole  hierarchy  of  demons  who  are  named  according  to 
their  supposed  classes  as  "  principalities,  powers,  and 
world-rulers  of  this  darkness,"  "  spiritual  hosts  of  evil  in 
the  heavenly  regions."  §  On  the  contrary  the  absence 

*  Eph.  iv.  13,  Cf.  Col.  ii.  19,  avtytiiS  rov  Qsov,  "increase  wrought 
by  God." 

f  Eph.  iv.  7,  ii. 

J  Eph.  i.  17,  18,  iii.  5,  iv.  n.  Cf.  John  xiv.  16,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7. 

§  Eph.  vi.  10,  14.  Here  not  only  the  phraseology  but  the  whole  concep- 
tion of  the  Christian  conflict  is  different  from  Paul's.  He  wrote,  indeed,  of 
"  the  God  of  this  world  "  who  darkens  the  understandings  of  believers  (2 
Cor.  iv.  4)  but  conceived  that  the  conflict  of  the  Christian  was  against  the 
flesh,  not  against  "  principalities  and  powers  "  and  "  the  spiritual  hosts  of 


200        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

from  the  Epistle  of  alleschatological  features  is  remarkable. 
There  is  no  mention  of  the  great  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
second  appearance  of  Christ  and  no  intimation  as  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  work  of  the  Saviour,  which  appears  to 
be  conceived  by  the  writer  with  almost  exclusive  reference 
to  the  exigencies  of  his  time,  which  were  "  the  building 
up"  of  a  united  Church  of  Jewish  and  gentile  Christians 
and  the  reconciliation  of  opposing  parties  in  Christ  the 
Head. 

.4. THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER. 

The  writing  traditionally  designated  as  the  First  Epis- 
tle of  Peter  and  addressed  "  to  the  strangers  scattered 
through  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia, 
chosen  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,"  etc.,  is 
an  exhortation  to  patience  under  suffering  and  to  a  life 
worthy  the  Christian  name,  which  probably  dates  from 
the  end  of  the  first  century  or  the  beginning  of  the 
iecond.  It  shows  approximations  to  the  Johannine  teach- 
ing and  an  acquaintance  with  and  dependence  on  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  and  on  Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  James, 

evil  in  the  heavenly  regions."  Such  a  conflict  is  not  even  mentioned  in 
Colossians,  the  writer  of  which  regards  the  hostile  powers  of  the  invisible 
world  a>  overcome  in  Christ's  death  on  the  cross,  and  led  away  in  triumph. 
A  further  development  in  this  direction  appears  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  where 
together  with  the  higher  significance  of  the  person  of  Christ  a  more  concrete 
and  distinctive  expression  is  given  to  that  of  his  great  adversary,  the  Devil, 
the  opponent  of  God  and  of  Christ.  There  the  large  number  of  evil  spirits, 
which  the  writer  of  Ephesians  employed  to  enhance  the  supernatural  power 
of  the  Evil  One,  disappears,  the  wickedness  and  hatred  of  the  great  Archon 
of  this  world  are  emphasized,  and  bad  men  are  represented  as  composing  his 
host  (John  xii.  31,  xiv.  30,  xvi.  n).  With  relation  to  the  development  of 
doctrine  on  this  subject  the  Epistle  occupies  a  middle  position  between  the 
Pauline  and  the  Johannine  views.  Cf.  KSstlin,  Lehrbegriff  des  Evan.  u.  der 
Briefe  Johann.,  p.  375,  and  Ffleiderer,  Der  Paulinismus,  2te  Aufl.  p.  460. 


THE  DE  UTERO-PA  ULINE  IN  TERPRE  TA  TIONS.      26 1 

and  perhaps  Ephesians.  It  reveals  nothing  of  any  peculi- 
arities which  may  be  supposed  to  have  belonged  to  Peter, 
but  rather  agrees  so  much  with  the  teaching  and  diction 
of  Paul  that  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  develop- 
ments to  which  the  great  impulse  which  proceeded  from 
him  gave  rise.  It  is  not,  however,  a  thorough-going  rep- 
resentative of  Paulinism,  and  is  not  distinctively  con- 
cerned with  the  great  controversies  which  Paul  started. 
Rather  it  shows  how  half  a  century  after  the  time  of  the 
great  apostle  his  ideas  were  modified  and  adapted  to  later 
exigencies  and  modes  of  thinking.  The  accords  which 
the  Epistle  shows  with  the  Pauline  writings  accordingly 
indicate  a  contact  with  his  general  religious  and  ethical 
ideas  rather  than  with  his  distinctive  doctrines.*  The 
writer  says,  indeed,  to  his  gentile  readers  that  they  have 
been  saved  from  their  former  mode  of  life  "  by  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  ancT 
without  spot."  f  Christ  suffered  for  us,  leaving  us  an  ex, 
ample  that  we  should  follow  his  steps.;):  The  purpose  of 
his  sacrifice  was  to  bring  us  to  God.§  It  is  evident  that 

*  Compare  I  Peter  i.  5  with  Gal.  iii.  23  ;  i  Peter  ii,  6,  7  with  Rom.  ix. 
33  ;  i  Peter  ii.  13,  14  with  Rom.  xiii.  1-4  ;  i  Peter  iv.  10,  TI  with  Rom. 
xii.  6,  7  ;  i  Peter  v.  i  with  Rom.  viii.  18  ;  i  Peter  iii.  8  with  Rom.  vi.  10. 

f  See  John  i.  29  ;  Heb.  ix,  14. 

Ji  Peter  ii.  21.  The  words:  "Who  himself  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  upon  the  cross  "  (kitl  TO  £vhov,  "  carried  them  up  to  the  cross  ")  rather 
implies  a  taking  away  of  our  sins  than  the  Pauline  representative  atonement, 
the  bearing  of  the  curse  of  the  law.  This  idea  of  purification  through  the 
death  of  Christ  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  words  which  follow  :  "In  order 
that  having  become  alienated  from  our  sins  [a7toyev6jj.£roi,  having  died 
to  them]  we  may  live  to  righteousness."  A  similar  ethical-practical  result 
of  the  death  of  Christ  is  expressed  in  i.  18  :  "  Not  with  perishable  things, 
silver  or  gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  were  ye  redeemed 
from  your  vain  manner  of  life  received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers." 

§  i  Peter  iii.  18. 


262        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  moral  influence  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  predomi- 
nant thought  of  the  writer,  and  that  the  Pauline  idea  of 
a  representative  atonement  for  sin,  of  Christ's  bearing  the 
curse  of  the  law,  and  of  justification  by  faith  were  ab- 
sent from  his  mind.  Faith,  indeed,  has  no  subordinate 
place  in  the  Epistle,  but  it  serves  a  practical  and  horta- 
tory rather  than  a  dogmatic  end,  and  the  readers  are  ex- 
horted to  remain  firm  in  it,  opposing  the  adversary,  the 
Devil.  The  conception  of  faith,  as  Pfleiderer  remarks,  is 
not  the  genuine  Pauline  one,  but  that  of  Hebrews  and  the 
I  Epistle  of  Clement.  Its  object  is  not  Christ  as  the  his- 
torical Saviour  from  sin,  but  Christ  as  the  glorified  one, 
now  indeed  invisible,  but  soon  to  be  revealed  in  order 
then  to  bring  deliverance.  The  Pauline  idea  that  he  that 
hath  died  has  been  justified  (set  free)  from  sin  assumes 
here  the  expression:  "  He  that  hath  suffered  in  the  flesh 
hath  ceased  from  sin,"  *  thus  receiving  the  moral  applica- 
tion that  the  desire  for  sin  ceases  in  the  sufferings  of  the 
flesh.  Salvation  is  apprehended  as  an  appropriation  of 
the  disposition  of  Christ  and  a  following  of  him  in  pa- 
tience under  suffering  and  persecution.  His  death  serves 
us  as  an  "  example,"  and  by  his  resurrection  and  exalta- 
tion to  "  glory  "  we  learn  that  our  "  faith  and  hope  are  in 
God."  Baptism  is  the  antitype  of  the  Noachian  deluge, 
and  is  regarded  as  saving  the  believers,  not  after  the  mys- 
tic conception  of  Paul  as  a  symbol  of  dying  with  Christ 
and  being  raised  with  him  to  a  new  life,  but  as  having  the 
moral  significance  of  the  earnest  seeking  for  a  good  con- 
science, by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  con- 
ceived apart  from  all  mysticism  as  the  motive  for  this 
moral  covenant  with  God.  f 

The  writer  of  this  Epistle  shows  a  tendency  to  find  ia 

*  I  Peter  iv.  I.  f  i  Peter  iii.  21,  22. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS.     263 

the  Old  Testament,  like  the  author  of  Hebrews,  models 
and  types  for  Christians  and  Christian  institutions,'*  and 
surpasses  Paul  and  the  latter  writer  in  his  view  of; 
prophecy,  assuming  that  not  merely  the  Holy  Spirit  but 
the  spirit  of  Christ  dwelt  in  and  spoke  through  the 
prophets,  declaring  "  beforehand  the  sufferings  to  come 
upon  Christ  and  the  glories  which  were  to  follow. "f  An 
exaltation  of  Christianity  consistent  with  itself  throughout 
is  apparent  in  various  parts  of  the  Epistle.  To  believers 
"  is  the  honor,"  and  their  joy  is  "  full  of  glory  " ;  they  are 
called  out  of  darkness  into  a  "  wonderful  light  "  ;  they 
are  born  of  imperishable  seed  "  through  the  word  of  God 
which  liveth  and  abideth  "  ;  on  them  "  resteth  the  spirit 
of  glory  and  of  God."  \  Whether  on  account  of  the 
writer's  purpose  to  adjust  differences  and  establish  har- 
mony in  the  churches  or  for  some  other  reason  the  Epistle 
contains  no  definite  Christology.  The  spirit  of  Christ  in 
the  prophets  "  testified  of  the  glories  which  were  to  follow," 
that  is,  perhaps,  his  resurrection  and  exaltation  "  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,  having  gone  into  heaven,  angels  and 
authorities  and  powers  being  made  subject  to  him."  § 
The  Epistle  has  no  distinctive  eschatology,  and  contains 
only  incidental  recognition  of  the  popular  expectation  of 
the  early  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  readers  are  ad- 
monished to  see  to  it  that  "  the  proof  of  their  faith  may 
be  found  unto  praise  and  glory  and  honor  at  the  manifes- 
tation of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  to  be  sober  and  hope  for 
the  grace  that  is  to  be  brought  to  them  at  that  time. 

*  i  Peter  iii.  5,  6,  20  f. 

f  i  Peter  i.  10,  n.      Cf.  John  xii.  37-41  ;  Heb.  viii.  8-12. 
J  i  Peter  ii.  7,  i.  8,  ii.  9,  i.  23,  iv.  14.      Cf.  John  xvii.  22,  i.  5. 
§  i   Peter  iii.  22  ;  cf.  Col.  ii.  10 ;  Eph.  i.  20  £.   i  Peter  iv.  n  ;  cf.  Heb. 
xiii.  21. 


264        THE   GOSPEL   A^7D   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

•"  When  the  chief  Shepherd  shall  appear  "  they  "  will  re- 
ceive the  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away."  *  The 
writer  appears  to  express  more  definitely  than  Paul 
the  doctrine  of  a  general  resurrection  and  judgment 
at  the  Parousia  in  the  words :  "  Who  shall  give  ac- 
count to  him  who  is  ready  to  judge  the  living  and 
the  dead."  f  The  bold  innovation  upon  Pauline  and 
all  other  antecedent  Christian  teaching  is  ventured  in 
giving  place  to  the  tradition  that  Christ  went  in  the 
spirit  "  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison  who  were 
disobedient  in  times  past  when  the  long-suffering  of  God 
waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,"  J  and  in  the  more  general 
teaching  that  "  the  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  dead  that 
they  might  indeed  be  judged  according  to  men  in  the 
flesh,  but  might  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit."  § 
The  doctrine  of  the  descent  of  Christ  to  the  underworld, 
probably  between  his  death  and  resurrection,  and  of  his 
ministry  to  sinful  spirits  there,  is  no  doubt  unequivocally 
expressed  here,  and  all  attempts  to  give  another  meaning 
than  this  to  the  words  in  question  are  grounded  upon  a 
faulty  exegesis.  Other  mythological  features  are  less  de- 
veloped in  this  Epistle  than  in  Ephesians.  The  "  adver- 
sary, the  Devil,"  is,  however,  distinctly  recognized,  and 
compared  to  "  a  roaring  lion  "  who  "  walketh  about  seek- 
ing whom  he  may  devour."  [ 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  deutero-Pauline  literature  of 

*  i  Peter  i.  7,  13,  v.  4.  f  I  Peter  iv.  5. 

\  i  Peter  iii.  19  f.  Baur's  interpretation  of  this  passage  by  referring  "  the 
spirits  in  prison  "  to  the  angels  who  were  supposed  to  have  sinned  (2  Peter 
ii.  4)  does  not  appear  to  be  well  sustained.  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  254  f. 
and  Neutest.  Theol.,  p.  291.  See  also  Spitta,  Christi  Predigt  an  die  Geister, 
and  von  Soden  on  the  passage  in  question  in  Holtzmann's  Hand-Commentar. 

§  i  Peter  iv.  6.  |  i  Peter  v.  8. 


THE  DEUTERO-PAULINE  INTERPRETATIONS,     265 

the  New  Testament  that  it  shows  a  more  decided  influence 
of  the  Alexandrian  speculations  than  appears  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  and  the  effects  of  contact  with  Gnostic 
ideas  in  their  origin.  Greek  thought  here  manifests  itself 
in  the  beginning  of  the  conquest  which  it  was  destined  to 
win.  The  exaltation  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  carried  to 
the  extent  that  a  cosmic  position  is  assigned  to  him.  He 
is  regarded  not  only  as  the  medium  of  the  creation  of  the 
world,  but  as  a  cosmic  world-spirit  in  whom  all  things 
subsist,  and  his  work  as  Saviour  includes  not  mankind 
alone  but  the  universe  of  spiritual  existences.  His  victory 
is  over  principalities  and  powers  whom  he  leads  captive 
in  triumph,  and  through  him  is  revealed  to  the  spiritual 
entities  "  in  the  heavenly  regions  "  "  the  manifold  wisdom 
of  God  according  to  His  purpose  for  ages."  He  was  not 
one  of  the  Gnostic  aeons,  but  the  pleroma  of  the  Godhead 
dwelt  in  him  bodily.  It  corresponds  with  his  exalted 
position  that  he  should  have  been  not  merely  the  preacher 
of  the  Gospel  to  men,  but  to  the  dead  in  the  underworld, 
that  his  conquest  of  the  powers  of  evil  might  include  the 
gloomy  realm  of  hades,  when  he  should  have  "  ascended 
on  high,  and  led  captivity  captive."  The  dualistic  an- 
tithesis of  heaven  and  earth,  the  Son's  kingdom  of  light 
and  Satan's  kingdom  of  darkness,  appears  in  these  writings 
prior  to  its  more  definite  expression  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
The  Gnostic  conception  of  God  as  absolutely  removed 
from  the  world  is  avoided,  and  the  Father  is  the  Creator 
through  the  medium  of  the  Son,  below  whom,  however, 
are  powers  akin  to  the  Alexandrian  orders  of  demons 
and  the  angels  of  the  early  Syrian  Gnosticism,  who  have 
apparently  some  claim  upon  mankind  which  is  annulled 
through  Christ,  being  "  nailed  to  the  cross."  The  death 
of  Christ  has  its  significance  rather  with  reference  to  the 


266        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

claims  of  these  world-powers  than,  as  with  Paul,  with  re- 
gard to  God  and  the  demands  of  His  righteousness,  and  in 
relation  to  men  directly  is  conceived  a*s  a  moral  influence 
and  example.* 

*  On  the  subjects  treated  of  in  this  chapter  the  student  may  consult : 
Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  1875,  pp.  352-390,  618-641,  659-680; 
Holtzmann,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  2te  Ausg.  1886,  pp.  276-296,  326-345, 
514-524;  Davidson,  Introduction,  1868,  i.  pp.  168-194,  216-279,  372~44°» 
Bleek,  Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer,  etc.,  1828-1840;  Riehm,  Der  Lehrbegr. 
des  Hebraerbr.,  etc.,  1858-9;  Wieseler,  Untersuch  liber  den  Hebraerbr.,  etc., 
1861  ;  Baur,  Neutest.  Theol.,  pp.  230-265,  287-297  ;  and  Paulus  2te  Ausg. 
ii.  pp.  3-49;  Pfleiderer,  Der  Paulinismus,  2te  Ausg.,  II.  Th.  chap.  2, 
Urchristenthum,  pp.  620-684 ;  Kostlin,  Lehrbegr.  des  Evangel,  u.  der 
Briefe  Johannis,  1843,  pp,  352-365,  472-481;  Weizsacker,  Apostol.  Zeitalter, 
2te  Ausg.  pp.  488  ff,  560  ff  ;  Holtzmann,  Ephes.  u.  Kol.  Briefe,  1872,  pp. 
206-241;  Meyer's  Comm.  on  Col.  and  Eph.,  and  Meyer-Huther  on  i  Peter  ; 
Salmon,  Irttrod.  to  N.  T.,  5th  ed.,  on  the  Epistles  in  question  ;  Lightfoot  on 
Col.  and  Ellicott  on  Col.  and  Eph.  ;  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  of  N.  T.,  Eng. 
Transl.,  i.  pp.  204-221,  ii.  pp.  75-118,  166-229  '»  Toy,  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity, pp.  118,  119,  430;  Schwegler,  Das  nachapostol.  Zeitalter,  1846, 
ii.  pp.  1-28,  304-344. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  JOHANNINE   TRANSFORMATION. 

A  LEXANDRIAN  speculation  had  already  about  one 
/~\^  hundred  years  before  the  composition  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  by  its  doctrine  of  the  Logos  prepared 
the  way  for  the  Christology  which  constitutes  a  dis- 
tinctive feature  of  the  apprehension  of  Christianity 
which  is  called  Johannine.  Johannine  is,  however,  a 
conventional  designation,  and  is  used  as  such  by  those 
who  do  not  believe  that  the  great  writing  which  con- 
tains this  interpretation  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  pro- 
ceeded from  the  apostle  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee.* 
The  internal  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel  shows  that  it 
was  written  with  a  doctrinal  rather  than  an  historical  pur- 
pose, and  reveals  an  author  whose  point  of  view  and  culture 
were  fundamentally  different  from  those  of  the  original 
apostles  of  Jesus.  The  influence  of  Alexandrian  thought 
is  much  more  distinctively  apparent  here  than  in  the  Pau- 
line and  deutero-Pauline  writings,  not  only  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Logos-idea,  but  also  in  the  conception  of  the 
relation  of  God  to  the  world  ;  so  that  there  appears  to  be 
ground  for  affirming  that  this  Gospel  could  not  have  been 
written  independently  of  the  works  of  Philo,  and  good 
reasons  for  believing  moreover  that  its  author  was  well 

*  For  a  discussion  of  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  fourth  Gospel  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  author's  Gospel-Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity, 
Chapter  vii.  and  the  literature  of  the  subject  therein  mentioned. 

267 


268        THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

in  touch  with  the  characteristic  ideas  of  this  Jewish-Greek 
speculator.  It  will  not  be  possible  within  the  limits  pro- 
posed for  this  work  to  enter  into  a  detailed  discussion  of 
the  opinions  of  Philo  which  are  related  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  Reference  can  only  be  made  to  them 
as  occasion  may  require.*  Suffice  it  to  remark  here  that 
fundamental  characteristics  common  both  to  Philo  and 
this  Gospel  are  a  dualistic  conception  which  places  God 
and  the  world  in  distinctive  contrast,  and  the  theory  of  a 
mediation  of  the  two  opposites  through  a  divine  messenger 
and  interpreter,  the  heavenly  Logos.  The  Johannine 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  requires  explanation,  since  it  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  sprung  into  existence  without  a 
cause.  Indeed,  the  form  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the 
prologue  to  the  Gospel  presupposes  that  the  author  as- 
sumed it  to  be  already  known  to  his  readers.  The  theory 
that  it  was  an  esoteric  teaching  of  Jesus  first  made  known 
by  the  disciple  John,  the  assumed  author  of  the  Gospel, 
can  only  be  maintained  by  cutting  off  the  synoptic  tradi- 
tion, to  which  it  is  unknown,  from  all  connection  with  an 
apostolical  source.  The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  who  in  the 
beginning  was  God  and  with  God,  through  whom  the 
world  was  made,  who  as  the  only-begotten  Son  is  a  being 
partaking  of  the  divine  essence,  and  who  as  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  troubled  cosmos  comes  to  his  own, 
and  flashes  as  a  light  upon  the  insensate  darkness,  finds  a 
natural  and  historical  connection  only  with  the  philosophy 

*  The  student  who  is  interested  in  studying  the  speculations  of  Philo  in 
detail  will  naturally  consult  his  complete  works  either  in  the  original  or  in 
the  English  translation  (Bonn's  Library)  and  the  expositions  of  his  opinions 
by  Gfrorer,  Philo  und  die  Alexandrinische  Theosophie,  etc.,  1831,  Dahne, 
Geschichtliche  Darstellung  der  judisch-alexandr.  Religions-Philosophic, 
1834,  Reville,  La  doctrine  du  Logos  dans  Philon.,  etc.,  and  Drummond, 
Philo  Judseus  and  the  Alexand.  Philosophy,  1888. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORM  A  TION.  269 

of  Philo.  With  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament 
these  ideas  can  have  only  a  forced  and  artificial  connection  ; 
and  if  the  sources  of  much  that  is  contained  in  Paulinism 
and  deutero-Paulinism  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in 
its  pages,  one  will  certainly  search  them  in  vain  for  the 
historical  antecedents  of  the  Johannine  conception  of  the 
Logos.  Philo  did  not,  indeed,  connect  the  Logos  with 
the  Messiah,  if  he  ascribed  to  this  agent  in  fact  any  real  per- 
sonality at  all  (a  question  which  we  must  leave  to  be  set- 
tled by  his  commentators),  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
he  could  have  united  the  functions  of  the  two  consistently 
with  the  Jewish  Messiah-idea.  The  fourth  evangelist, 
however,  in  combining  the  ideal  principle  of  the  Logos 
with  the  historical  personality  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  gave 
to  the  Philonic  mediating  agent,  the  Logos,  a  definite 
form  and  a  religious  character  which  the  Alexandrian  spec- 
ulation  was  in  the  nature  of  the  case  unable  to  compass. 

The  tendency  of  the  Christology  of  the  New  Testament 
to  exalt  and  idealize  the  person  of  Christ  reaches  its 
highest  point  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  synoptic  evange- 
lists contented  themselves  with  a  supernatural  birth,  a 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  baptism,  and  an  apoca- 
lyptic coming  with  the  clouds  to  judgment.  Paul  conceived 
of  him  as  the  preexistent  "  man  from  heaven,"  the  arche- 
typal "  second  Adam,  "  the  Spirit.  In  the  deutero-Pauline 
Epistles  he  becomes  the  agent  of  creation,  the  great  high- 
priest,  the  brightness  of  the  divine  glory,  the  image  of  the 
person  of  God,  the  sustainer  of  all  things,  and  the  victor 
who  leads  captive  the  principalities  and  powers  of  evil  in 
triumph  in  his  train.  The  doctrine  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
is  an  advance  beyond  the  antecedent  views,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  a  development  of  them.  Here  the  historical 
Jesus  is  represented  as  the  divine  Logos  who  was  in  the 


2/0       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

beginning  with  God,  and  was  God,  by  whom  the  world 
was  made,  who  became  flesh  and  took  up  a  temporary 
abode  among  men  to  reveal  the  Father  and  return  to  His 
bosom  whence  he  came  forth.  The  writer's  doctrine  of 
the  person  of  Christ  and  his  purpose  to  exalt  him  to  the 
highest  eminence  short  of  an  equality  with  the  Deity  are 
evident  in  the  declaration  that  "  the  Logos  was  God.  " 
In  this  expression  .God  is  evidently  the  predicate,  and  the 
meaning  can  only  be  that  the  Logos  was  a  being  who, 
though  not  identical  with  the  Supreme  Being,  yet  partook 
of  His  nature  and  essence.  In  the  conception  of  the 
Logos  and  in  the  terms  employed  of  him  there  appear  to 
be  implied  on  the  one  hand  his  separate  personal  exist- 
ence, and  on  the  other  a  most  intimate  connection  with  the 
Deity  and  even  a  movement  toward  unity  with  Him.  f 
The  genesis  of  the  Logos-idea  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found 
in  the  thought,  which  is  not,  indeed,  foreign  to  the  Old 
Testament,  that  God  does  not  immediately  reveal  Himself, 
but  is  in  His  essence  invisible  and  incapable  of  direct 
manifestation.  Under  the  influence  of  Platonic  and  Stoic 

*  6cd?  rjv  o  \6yo$,  John  i.  i.  Philo  also  called  the  Logos  God,  a  second 
God,  and  distinguished  him  from  the  Supreme  Being  by  omitting  the  article 
before  Bed's  as  applied  to  him  (OfoS,  instead  of  6  0£o?). 

f  The  expression  of  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  God  which  is  contained 
in  the  original  cannot  well  be  rendered  in  an  English  translation.  The 
words  "with  God " and  "  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father "  (John  i.  i,  18)  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  Greek  in  a  manner  intended  to  convey  "ideal  annexation,  " 
"  always  turning  toward,  "  "  moving  toward  the  heart  of  God  and  seeking 
to  remove  in  unity  with  Him  all  that  separates  and  distinguishes  from  God.  " 
The  structure  is  that  of  prepositions  with  verbs  of  rest  which  are  more  fre 
quently  employed  with  verbs  of  motion,  jrpdS  rov  Ofdr,  £/£  rov  Kokitovy 
etc.  "  Difference  in  unity  and  unity  in  difference"  appears  to  be  a  happy 
expression  of  the  relation  implied  in  the  terms  employed.  See  Winer, 
Gram,  of  N.  T.jOrimm-Wilke's  Clavis  N.  T.;  and  Baur,  N.  T.  Theol.  on 
the  passages. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2/1 

speculations,  this  idea  became  prominent  in  the  Jewish- 
Alexandrian  philosophy  of  Philo,  in  which  the  Logos  is 
the  epitome  of  all  the  divine  powers.  Proceeding  forth 
from  his  immanence  in  God,  *  in  which  condition  he  is 
conceived  as  containing  the  archetypal  world  in  himself, 
the  Platonic  real  world,  the  world-ideal,  he  becomes  the 
sum-total  of  the  relations  of  God  to  the  world,f  to  whom 
are  ascribed  creation,  the  communication  of  power  and 
endowment,  light,  life,  and  wisdom,  so  that  he  is  not 
essentially  different  from  the  divine  Spirit  in  qualities  and 
the  effects  which  he  produces,  though  in  fact  only  the 
manifestation  of  Deity.  Accordingly,  he  is  the  image  of 
God,  the  oldest  and  first-born  son  of  God,  the  possessor 
of  all  the  fulness  of  Deity,  the  mediator  between  God  and 
the  world.  If  it  be  conceded,  as  it  probably  must  be,  that 
unless  in  the  Christian  consciousness  of  his  time  Christ 
had  already  been  exalted  to  the  eminence  of  a  divine 
being,  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  to  apply  to  him  the  current  Logos-idea 
of  the  age,  it  is  evident  that  he  could  not  have  given  more 
effective  expression  to  the  estimation  in  which  he  was 
held  than  by  applying  to  him  this  Philonic  designation, 
which  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  doctrine  was  called  the  word  (logos)  of  God.  In 
the  meaning  of  Logos  the  idea  of  "  word  "  or  organ  of 
revelation  is  fundamental,  since  logos  is  reason  only  so  far 
as  "  thought  is  conceived  as  also  a  speaking  or  expression." 
It  has  been  shown  that  in  the  conceptions  which  we  find 
in  the  prologue  to  the  Gospel,  Logos,  life,  light,  fulness, 
grace,  truth,;]:  there  are  analogies  with  Gnostic  ideas  and 

*  As  the  "  inward  Logos,"  hoyo1-, 
f  As  the  "  uttered  Logos,  "  XoyoS 


2/2        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

in  particular  with  the  doctrine  of  the  aeons,  and  that  there 
is  some  ground  for  the  theory  that  the  exalted  and  purely 
spiritual  apprehension  of  Christianity,  and  the  dualism  of 
God  and  the  world,  light  and  darkness,  etc.,  which  finds 
frequent  expression  in  the  Gospel,  indicate  the  influence 
upon  the  writer  of  Gnosticism  in  its  earlier  stages  at  least. 
But  it  should  be  noted  that  the  author  is  silent  regarding 
a  proceeding  of  the  Logos  from  God,  his  emanation  or 
generation  with  which  Gnosticism  and  Christian  theology 
zealously  occupied  themselves.  Apart  from  calling  him 
the  only-begotten  Son  he  appears  intentionally  to  avoid 
all  speculations  of  this  sort,  and  to  assume  a  dependence 
of  the  Logos  upon  the  Father  without  entering  into 
metaphysical  inquiries  regarding  its  nature. 

The  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  nature  of  God  and  of 
His  relation  to  the  world  constitutes  an  important  feature 
of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  basis  of  this  theology  is  mono- 
theism, and  God  is  recognized,  as  in  Philo  and  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  highest  Being,  God  in  the  absolute 
sense,  "  the  only  true  God."  *  The  fundamental  and 
most  distinctive  doctrine  concerning  God  is  contained  in 
the  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  his  conversation  with  the 
Samaritan  woman  :  "  God  is  Spirit,  and  they  who  worship 
must  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Related  to  this  doc- 
trine is  the  teaching  of  the  prologue  that  "  No  one  hath 
ever  seen  God  ;  the  only-begotten  Son  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  made  Him  known. "f  So 
clear  and  definite  an  expression  of  the  spirituality  of  God 
is  found  in  no  antecedent  writing  of  the  New  Testament. 
Not  only  are  all  corporeal  predicates  of  Deity  excluded, 

*  John  xvii.   3,  v.  44  ;  cf.  i  John  v.  20,  and  Philo's 
11  the  most  generic  thing." 
f  John  iv.  24,  i.  18. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  2?$ 

but  it  is  implied  in  the  emphatic  declaration  of  the  spir- 
ituality of  His  nature  that  all  spatial  limitations  of  His 
worship,  as  Jerusalem  and  Gerizim,  are  incompatible  with 
it.  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  held  that  spirit  cannot 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  predicates  of  the  Deity,  as 
if  one  should  speak  of  the  spirit  of  God,  but  that  Spirit 
and  God  are  identical  terms,  and  that  in  His  absolute 
essence  He  is  Spirit.  As  Spirit,  God  is  the  antithesis  of 
"  the  flesh  "  ;  *  He  is  the  truth  by  preeminence,  and  noth- 
ing has  validity  and  permanence  which  does  not  come 
from  him.  His  word  is  truth,  and  they  who  do  the  truth 
perform  works  which  are  wrought  in  Him.  f  He  is  also  the 
living  One  who  has  life  in  Himself  and  communicates  it 
to  the  Son ;  J  as  such  he  is  not,  however,  the  eternal 
repose  of  the  Gnostics  but  rather  the  Philonic  ever-active, 
absolute  source  of  energy.  As  He  "  worketh  hitherto," 
and  no  Sabbath-rest  is  known  to  Him,  so  the  Son  may 
work  on  all  days.  §  He  is  the  original  source  of  all  crea- 
tive, sustaining,  saving  activity,  and  the  Son  who,  like  the 
Philonic  Logos,  is  His  manifestation  and  agent,  does 
nothing  but  what  he  sees  the  Father  do  and  is  commis- 
sioned by  Him  to  execute.  |  While  the  attributes 
ascribed  to  God  in  the  fourth  Gospel  are  also  ascribed  to 
Him  in  the  Alexandrian  philosophy,  the  doctrine  that  He 
is  Spirit  was  unknown  to  the  latter. 

In  the  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  God  to 
men  His  love  is  assigned  a  prominent  place,  as  in  the 
synoptic  record.  Philo  had  previously  dwelt  with  con- 
siderable  fulness  upon  this  quality  of  the  divine  nature. 

*  John  i.  13,  vi.  63. 

f  John  xvii.  17,  iii.  21,  33,  viii.  26  ;  cf.  i  John  i.  5,  "  God  is  light,"  etc. 

\  John  v.  26,  vi.  57. 

§  John  v.  17.  |  John  v.  19,  30. 


18 


2/4       THE   GOSPEL  AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

He  even  includes  external  nature  among  the  recipients  of 
the  prodigal  goodness  of  God  which  is  manifested  in  the 
rain  poured  into  the  sea  and  in  the  fountains  which  are 
made  to  gush  forth  in  desert  places.  In  His  munificence 
God  bestows  good  things  upon  all,  even  upon  the  imper- 
fect, that  He  may  provoke  them  to  the  pursuit  of  virtue, 
and  shows  pity  toward  the  unworthy.  "  He  not  only 
pities  after  He  has  judged,  but  judges  after  He  has  pitied  ; 
for  with  Him  pity  is  older  than  judgment."  He  made 
the  world  not  for  Himself,  for  before  the  creation  He  was 
sufficient  unto  Himself,  but  because  He  was  "  good  and 
bountiful."  *  Without  stint  there  are  awarded  to  those 
who  are  worthy  "  the  abundant  riches  of  the  graces  f  of 
God  "  which  u  issue  from  ever-flowing  fountains,  peren- 
nial, unceasing,  and  without  intermission."  The  fondness 
with  which  Philo  dwells  upon  this  quality  of  the  divine 
nature  is  indicated  by  the  numerous  predicates  which  he 
applies  to  it.  God  is  munificent,  giver  of  wealth,  kind, 
and  lover  of  man,  benevolent,  propitious.  ^  Were  it  not 
for  the  love  of  God  all  men  would  perish.  All  the  good 
things  which  they  possess,  virtue,  piety,  good-will,  right- 
eousness, faith,  etc.,  are  His  gifts,  and  it  is  the  greatest 
sin  for  man  to  attribute  any  good  to  himself.  So  great, 
indeed,  is  the  prodigality  of  the  divine  beneficence  that 
it  is  necessary  that  it  be  restricted  by  the  limited  capacity 
of  its  recipients  ;  for  the  created,  being  too  weak  to  re- 
ceive its  vastness,  would  faint  unless  the  lot  of  each  were 
measured  out  in  due  proportion.  As  in  Philo,  so  in  the 
Johannine  thought,  love  is  the  predominant  motive  of 
the  divine  activity.  It  is  eternal  in  the  divine  nature,  and 


*  ayaftoS  ndi  tpi 

f  ja'ptrfi?,  graces  or  favors. 

t  XPrf6T<>'*i  <piA.ctvQpoiro$,  KvnEvrfS,  etc. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2/5 

God  loved  the  Son  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.* 
The  direct  declaration  that  "  God  is  love  "  is  not,  indeed, 
contained  in  the  Gospel,  but  this  teaching  of  the  first 
Epistle  of  John  is  perhaps  implied  in  it,  if  it  be  compatible 
with  this  doctrine  that  a  class  of  men  should  be  desig- 
nated as  the  special  objects  of  His  love.  We  do  not  find 
in  this  Gospel  such  expressions  of  the  impartial  goodness 
and  love  of  God  as  that  "  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise  on 
the  evil  and  on  the  good,"  and  the  teaching  that  men 
ought  to  love  their  enemies  that  they  "  may  become  sons 
of  their  Father  who  is  in  heaven,"  the  "  merciful "  One 
who  "is  kind  to  the  unthankful  and  the  evil."f  The 
writer  shows  no  predilection  for  dwelling  on  the  goodness 
and  mercy  of  God,  and  in  this  respect  he  is  not  to  be 
compared  with  some  of  the  prophets  and  psalmists  and 
even  with  Philo.  God's  love  of  the  world  and  His  good- 
will and  beneficent  purpose  toward  all  men  in  the  mission 
of  Christ  are  declared  in  the  words :  "  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  He  gave  the  only-begotten  Son,  that  every  one 
who  believeth  on  him  may  not  perish,  but  may  have  ever- 
lasting life.  For  God  sent  not  the  Son  into  the  world  to 
condemn  the  world,  but  that  through  him  the  world 
might  be  saved."  t  Yet  notwithstanding  this  declaration 
of  the  universal  divine  good-will  it  must  be  conceded 
that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  did  not  escape  the  influence 
of  the  Gnostic  dualism  of  his  age,  that  he  never  loses 
sight  of  the  two  realms  of  light  and  darkness  which 
stand  in  eternal  opposition  to  each  other,  and  that  he 
frequently  represents  the  children  of  light  as  the  special 
if  not  the  sole  objects  of  God's  love,  while  he  conceives 

*  John  xvii.  24  ;  yet  a  special  reason  for  the  Father's  love  of  him  is  given 
in  another  place,  x.  17. 

f   Matt.  v.  45  ;  Luke  vi.  35.  \  John  iii.  16,  17. 


2/6        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  unbelieving  children  of  darkness  to  be  in  a  condition 
which  is  little  short  of  hopeless.  Love  of  Christ  and  be- 
lief in  him  on  the  part  of  men  are  represented  as  the  con- 
dition of  the  bestowal  of  God's  love  upon  them.  "  He 
that  loveth  me  will  be  loved  of  my  Father  " ;  "  If  any 
one  love  me  he  will  keep  my  word  ;  and  my  Father  will 
love  him."*  These  fortunate  ones  "  were  "  God's,  and 
He  "  gave  "  them  to  Christ.  They  are  not  of  the  hostile 
and  darkened  u  world,"  but  "believed,"  and  are  made  the 
sole  subjects  of  the  prayer  of  the  departing  Christ,  who 
is  "  glorified  in  them."  f 

In  the  terms  of  this  prayer  it  appears  to  be  indicated 
that  there  is  a  class  of  men  who  are  the  especial  objects 
of  the  divine  interest  and  of  the  regard  of  Jesus,  those 
whom  God  has  "  given  "  to  him  and  those  who  "  may 
believe  through  their  word."  The  petition  for  these  is 
that  they  may  be  kept  from  the  Evil  One,  and  that  they 
may  be  made  perfect  in  one,  so  that  "  the  world  "  may 
know  that  Christ  is  the  sent  of  God  who  loves  them  as 
him 4  On  these  falls  the  light  of  hope  and  of  celestial 
favor.  The  unbelievers  appear,  however,  to  be  left  in  the 
shadow  of  seclusion  and  disfavor.  Jesus  is  made  to  say 
expressly  that  he  does  not  pray  for  "  the  world,"  presum- 
ably because  they  who  are  represented  by  this  term,  the 
children  of  darkness  and  unbelief,  are  not  objects  of  the 
Father's  love,  since  it  definitively  declared  that  he  who- 
does  "  not  believe  in  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  §  This  must  be  regarded 
as  one  of  the  hard  sayings  of  this  "  spiritual  "  Gospel,  and 
it  reminds  one  much  rather  of  the  vehement  Baptizer,  the 

*  John  xiv.  21,  23,  cf.  xvii.  23,  26. 

f  John  xvii.  6,  9,  10,  16. 

\  John  xvii.  20,  21.  §  John  iii.  36. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  2JJ 

fiery  Revelator,  and  the  impetuous  Paul,  than  of  the 
Jesus  of  the  synoptists,  even  when  pronouncing  the 
seven  woes.  This  peculiarly  Johannine  idea  that  those 
who  "  were  "  God's,  from  what  antecedent  time-limit  does 
not  appear,  the  believers  in  Jesus  and  those  who  should  be 
their  followers,  are  the  especial  objects  of  the  divine  love, 
stands  in  immediate  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  judg- 
ment which  is  set  forth  in  this  Gospel.  One  has  only  to 
read  it  superficially  to  see  that  the  predominant  principle 
of  discrimination  between  men  is  not  character,  but  belief 
or  unbelief  in  Christ.  He  that  believeth  shall  not  perish, 
but  hath  eternal  life,  shall  never  thirst,  shall  not  die, 
though  dead  shall  live,  shall  do  greater  works  than  Christ 
himself  performed  ;  while  he  that  believeth  not  abideth 
in  darkness,  and  is  the  object  of  the  divine  "  wrath."  * 
The  chief  object  of  the  mission  of  Christ  is  that  men  may 
believe,  and  the  Gospel  is  declared  to  have  been  written 
expressly  for  this  purpose,  f  We  miss  here  the  emphasis 
upon  conduct  which  we  find  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
and  in  such  words  as  :  "  He  that  heareth  my  words  and 
doeth  them,  I  will  tell  you  to  whom  he  is  like,"  etc. 
Again,  we  find  in  this  Gospel  no  trace  of  the  deutero- 
Pauline  doctrine  that  all  men  are  "  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,"  $  and  the  Pauline  teaching  that "  the  law  worketh 
wrath  "  §  upon  the  whole  race  as  fleshly  and  unable  to 
fulfil  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  accepted  by  the 
writer.  Rather  does  he  seem  inclined  toward  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  predestination  which,  as  has  been  shown,  the 
Apostle  did  not  reconcile  with  his  fundamental  proposi- 
tions, for  those  who  in  this  Gospel  are  said  to  be  "  of 

*  John  vi.  35,  47,  v.  24,  xi.  25,  26,  xii.  46,  xiv.  12. 

f  John  vi.  29,  xi.  15,  xiv.  29,  xvii.  21,  xx.  31. 

J  Eph.  ii.  3.  §  Rom.  iv.  15. 


278        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

God,"  "  of  the  truth,"  who  by  a  natural  impulse  inborn  in 
the  children  of  light  or  by  a  divine  determination 
("  drawn  "  by  the  Father)  come  in  faith  to  Christ,  suggest 
Paul's  "  vessels  of  mercy  which  God  had  prepared  before 
for  His  glory."  *  Accordingly,  judgment  in  the  Old- 
Testament  sense,  one  may  even  say  in  the  sense  of  the 
apocalyptical  eschatology  of  the  synoptists,  is  unknown 
to  the  Johannine  theology.  It  is  expressly  declared  that 
"  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son,"  f  and  yet  he  "  came  not  to  judge 
the  world,"  \  for  he  that  believes  is  not  condemned,  and 
the  unbeliever  "  is  condemned  already."  §  The  believers 
"  were "  God's,  and  as  to  them  there  is  required  only 
"the  realization  of  the  relation  in  which  they  always  stood 
to  God,"  which  is  effected  by  the  revelation  of  the  truth 
in  Christ  for  which  they  who  love  the  light  have  a  natural 
affinity.  Hence  Christ  is  made  to  say  that  he  judges  no 
man,  and  that  he  was  not  sent  into  the  world  in  order  to- 
judge  it ;  |  and  the  conception  of  judgment  which  the 
writer  evidently  represents  is  that  of  a  process  inwardly 
effected,  a  "  crisis  "  determined  by  the  attitude  of  men 
toward  Christ  and  the  "  light,"  without  an  external  decree 
or  an  apocalyptic  assize.  This  "  crisis  "  or  separation 
between  those  who  love  the  "  light "  and  those  who  love 
"darkness,"  the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of"  the 
world,"  which  is  hostile  to  Him  according  to  the  dualistic 
conception  of  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  is,  so  to  speak, 
automatically  carried  on  by  the  natural  gravitation  of  the 
two  classes  without  the  interference  of  God  or  Christ. 
The  "  word  "  which  Christ  has  "  spoken  "  will  judge  at  the 
last  day.T 

*  John  xviii.  37,  vi.  44  ;  Rom.  ix.  23.  f  John  v.  22. 

\  John  xii.  47.  §  John  iii.  18. 

|  John  viii.  15,  iii.  17.  1"  John  xii.  48. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  T10N.  279 

The  dualism  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  culmi- 
nates in  the  conception  of  a  personal  power  of  evil.  This 
conception  was  not,  however,  original  with  him.  As  the 
intensity  of  his  idea  of  the  hostility  of  the  children  of 
darkness  was  due  to  the  opposition  which  in  his  time  the 
non-Christian  world  manifested  toward  Christianity,  and 
as  Hellenism  furnished  him  with  a  philosophical  basis  for 
dualism,  so  Judaism,  Hellenism,  and  antecedent  Christian 
thought,  supplied  a  well-developed  doctrine  of  Satan.  In 
the  book  of  Wisdom  it  is  taught  that  by  the  envy  of  the 
Devil  sin  came  into  the  world ;  in  the  synoptic  Gospels 
Jesus  begins  his  career  by  a  victory  over  him,  and  through- 
out his  ministry  contends  with  and  subjugates  demonic 
powers;  Paul  represents  Satan  as  an  adversary  whose 
"  devices  "  he  knew  ;  *  and  in  the  deutero-Pauline  litera- 
ture is  developed,  as  we  have  seen,  a  hierarchy  of  evil 
powers.  In  the  Johannine  thought  Satan  plays  a  con- 
spicuous part  as  a  power  at  the  head  of  all  the  forces  of 
evil  and  directly  opposed  to  God,  Christ,  and  all  that  is 
good.  He  is  "the  prince  of  this  world  "  (Paul  had  already 
named  him  "  the  God  of  this  world  "),  the  Devil,f  "the 
Evil  One.":):  He  was  "  a  murderer  from  the  beginning"; 
"  he  abideth  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in 
him  "  ;  "  when  he  speaketh  a  lie,  hespeaketh  from  his  own 
nature,  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it."  §  The  hatred 
of  and  opposition  to  Christ  manifested  by  the  Jews  are 
chargeable  to  him  as  their  source,  for  these  enemies  of 
Jesus  who  are  filled  with  animosity  toward  him,  and  are 
ready  to  slay  him,  are  declared  to  be  "  the  children  of  the 
Devil."  But  his  opposition  is  destined  to  failure.  He 
fights  a  losing  battle.  He  is  doomed  to  be  "  cast  out,"  to 

*  2  Cor.  ii.  n,  iv.  4,  xi.  3,   14,  xii.  7. 

f  6  SiafioXoS.  \  o 

§  John  viii.  44  ;  cf.  Wisdom  ii.  24. 


280        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

be  "  judged,"  and  to  be  overthrown.*  The  sphere  of  his 
activity  is  different  in  the  fourth  Gospel  from  that  which 
is  assigned  to  him  in  the  synoptics.  In  the  latter,  as  in 
Paul,  he  exercises  a  malign  influence  upon  the  bodies  of 
men  ;  but  in  the  former  his  realm  is  conceived  as  spiritual 
and  ethical.  Hence  in  the  Johannine  record  no  demoniacs 
appear,  and  Satan  rules  not  over  orders  of  demons  and  the 
powers  of  the  air,  as  in  the  deutero-Pauline  literature,  but 
in  the  souls  of  the  children  of  darkness.  From  this  teaching 
of  the  overthrow  of  Satan  it  is  evident  that  the  Johannine 
dualism  is  not  carried  to  the  point  of  conceiving  him  to 
be  the  peer  of  God.  But  although  a  subordinate  being 
who  is  unable  to  stand  against  the  powers  of  good  repre- 
sented by  the  Logos,  he  is  not  regarded  as  created.  At 
least  no  explicit  declaration  is  made  concerning  his  origin. 
Was  he  perhaps  conceived  as  uncreated,  eternal,  like  the 
darkness  to  which  he  is  allied,  that  in  the  Hebrew  cos- 
mogony was  present  before  the  foundation  of  the  world? 
That  he  was  not  thought  to  have  been  originally  good, 
an  archangel  who  fell  from  a  high  estate  to  become  the 
prince  of  darkness,  appears  to  be  implied  in  the  remark 
that  he  was  a  murderer  "  from  the  beginning."  It  can 
hardly  be  reconciled  with  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer 
of  the  Gospel  that  he  should  have  regarded  the  personifi- 
cation of  evil  as  a  creation  of  God,  a  part  of  the  "  world  " 
which  was  made  through  the  agency  of  the  good  Logos. 
Did  he  adopt  the  Gnostic  view  according  to  which  the 
Demiurge  (the  inferior  God,  the  Jaldabaoth,  the  creator 
of  the  world,  the  God  of  the  Jews)  was  the  father  of  the 
serpent  ?  f  Words  in  viii.  44  may  with  great  plausibility 
be  interpreted  as  favorable  to  this  view,  for  they  are  capa- 

*  John  xii.  31,  xvi.  n  ;  cf.  I  John  iii.  8. 

f  Iren.  Adv.  Haer.,  i.  30,  8  ;    Epiph.  Haer.,  xxxvii.  4. 


THE  JOHA  NNINE    TRA  NSFORMA  TIO?. '.  2  8 1 

ble  of  being  rendered  :  "  A  liar  is  also  his  father."  *  But 
the  words  do  not  require  this  rendering,  and  the  connec- 
tion favors  the  ordinary  interpretation  :  "  He  is  a  liar 
and  the  father  of  it,"  though  Meyer  renders  them  :  "  He 
is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  him  [the  liar]."  It  is  very  im- 
probable, besides,  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  could  have 
conceived  of  a  Demiurge,  or  a  creative  god,  subordinate 
to  the  Deity,  since  to  him  the  Logos  is  the  former  of  the 
world.  Avoiding  all  metaphysical  inquiries  as  to  the 
origin  of  evil,  he  seems  to  have  contented  himself  with 
referring  its  manifestations  in  the  darkened  world  to  an 
uncreated  power. 

The  more  sharply  the  transcendent  God  and  the  world 
under  its  "  prince,"  the  personified  power  of  evil,  were 
contrasted,  the  greater  was  the  need  of  a  mediator  between 
them,  an  organ  of  revelation,  through  whom  those  who 
were  to  be  saved  might  be  rescued  from  the  dominion  of 
Satan  and  the  realm  of  darkness.  As  in  Philo,  so  in  the 
Johannine  thought,  this  mediator  is  the  God-allied  Logos 
who  by  nature  stands  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
supreme  Being,  is  in  fact  divine,  and  as  such  called  God. 
He  condescends,  however,  from  his  high  estate  to  come 
into  relations  with  men  in  order  to  give  to  as  many  as 
would  receive  him  power  to  become  children  of  God.  f 
Without  entering  into  metaphysical  speculations  as  to  the 
mode  of  his  origin,  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  contents  him- 

*  WEv6rrfy  k6rlv  noct  6  itarrjp  avrov.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Hilgen- 
feld  so  interpreted  these  words  in  Das  Evangel,  und  die  Brief e  Johannis, 
1849,  in  Die  Evangelien,  etc,  1854,  and  in  Einleit.  in  das.  N.  T.,  1875. 
But  it  has  not  fallen  under  the  notice  of  the  writer  that  this  scholar  has  been 
followed  in  his  interpretation  of  the  passage  by  any  authorities.  He  also 
reads,  £K  rov  TtarpoS  rov  diafiokov  k6re  in  the  same  verse,  "  Ye  are  of 
the  father  of  the  Devil." 

f  John  i.  12. 


282        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

self,  and  we  may  suppose  satisfied  his  contemporary  read- 
ers, with  the  teaching , that  the  Logos  was  "  the  only-be- 
gotten Son,"  *  and  that  his  manifested  "  glory  "  was  as 
that  of  "  an  only-begotten  of  a  father."  f  In  this  sonship 
is  implied  a  community  of  essence  with  the  Father,  and 
it  is  evident  that  "  the  Son  of  God  "  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
represents  a  conception  essentially  different  from  that 
contained  in  the  term  in  the  synoptics.  The  Christian 
consciousness  of  the  age  in  which  the  Gospel  was  written 
required  an  exaltation  of  Christ  not  inferior  certainly  to 
that  which  had  been  accomplished  in  the  deutero-Pauline 
literature,  and  could  apparently  be  satisfied  with  nothing 
short  of  conferring  upon  him  all  the  glory  and  divinity 
that  could  be  bestowed  in  consistency  with  the  mono- 
theistic doctrine,  which  must  of  course  be  kept  intact. 
The  declaration  that  the  Logos  was  "  in  the  beginning 
with  God  "  indicates  an  intention  of  the  writer  to  avoid 
all  perplexing  questions  regarding  the  time  and  the  man- 
ner of  the  generation  implied  in  sonship,  and  in  the  idea 
of  Son  as  well  as  in  the  teaching  that  he  "  was  God  "  he 
conveys  the  doctrine  of  an  essential  identity  of  essence 
with  God,  unity  and  likeness  with  Him,  which  are  emphati- 
cally expressed  in  the  declaration  that  he  who  has  seen  the 
Son  has  seen  the  Father.  £  That  the  unity  of  the  Father 
and  the  Logos  is  conceived  as  one  which  is  not  incom- 
patible with  difference  of  personality  and  independence 
of  the  individual  self-consciousness  is  evident  from  the 
words  said  to  be  spoken  of  the  disciples :  "  That  they  all 
may  be  one,  as  Thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee."§ 
As  one  with  the  Father,  the  Son  is  not  only  called  God, 
but  is  represented  as  receiving  adoration  as  "  Lord  and 

*  narjoyevrjS  vlot,  John  i.  18.  f  John  i.  14. 

J  John  xii.  45,  xiv.  9,  cf.  x.  30,  38.  §  John  xvii.  21. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  283 

God."  It  is  evident,  however,  that  this  dignity  is  con- 
ceived to  belong  to  him  only  as  Son,  since  absolute  exist- 
ence is  plainly  ascribed  to  the  "  only  true  God  "  alone. 
The  Son  is,  indeed,  "  the  truth  and  the  life,"  but  not  ab- 
solutely such.  He  is  "  the  way  "  by  which  men  may  come 
to  the  Father,  and  only  through  him  can  they  come,  f 
As  God,  though  not  "  the  only  true  God,"  divine  qualities 
are  ascribed  to  him,  and  he  is  ranked  with  the  Deity  as 
an  object  of  faith.  "  Everything  that  the  Father  hath  is 
mine,"  he  is  made  to  say.  "  As  the  Father  hath  life  in 
Himself,  so  did  He  give  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in 
himself."  \  He  is  represented  as  having  supernatural 
knowledge,  as  knowing  all  things,  heavenly  as  well  as 
earthly,  the  human  heart,  and  God  Himself,  as  annihilat- 
ing space  with  his  far-seeing  vision,  and  penetrating  into 
the  distant  future  with  prophetic  foresight.  §  He  is  able 
to  disclose  the  hidden  things  of  God  and  of  the  celestial 
realm,  for  he  speaks  as  one  knowing  from  what  he  has  seen 
and  heard.  ]  Not  only  does  the  Father  show  him  all 
things  that  He  does,  but  whatever  the  Father  does  that 
does  the  Son  in  like  manner.  1"  As  the  organ  of  almighty 
energy,  he  is  endowed  with  the  most  marvellous  miraculous 
powers,  and  easily  performs  works  which  surpass  all  the  won- 
ders of  the  earlier  evangelic  tradition.  Yet  with  all  this 
godlikeness  of  endowment  he  is  in  all  things  dependent  on 
and  subordinate  to  the  Father,  unable  to  do  anything 
of  himself,  and  speaking  only  the  words  which  are  given 
to  him  from  above.  The  Father  is  "  greater  "  than  he.  ** 

*  John  xx.  28.  f  John  xiv.  6. 

\  John  xiv.  i,  xvi.  15,  v.  21,  26. 

§  John  vi.  64,  xvi.  4,  30,  xvii.  25,  i.  18,  48,  ii.  25,  iii.  12,  31,  x.  15,  vii,  29. 

|  John  iii.  ii.  32,  vi.  46,  viii.  40.  Tf  John  v.  19,  20. 

**  John  v.  19,  xiv.  16,  28. 


284        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

His  oneness  with  God  is  manifested  in  the  complete  sub- 
ordination of  his  will  to  that  of  his  Father,  which  with 
unselfish  devotion  he  seeks  to  do  for  the  divine  glory.  To 
do  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  him,  this  is  the  food  which 
his  disciples  knew  not  of.  * 

While  the  Johannine  Logos-idea  was  probably  derived 
from  Philo,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  the  relation  of 
the  two  conceptions  is  not  by  any  means  such  that  the 
one  covers  the  other.  Rather  they  differ  in  that  the 
Alexandrian  is  metaphysical  and  vague,  and  the  Johannine 
is  religious  and  concrete.  The  fact  is  significant  that  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  applies  the  term  Logos  to 
Christ  only  twice,  once  in  speaking  of  his  preexistence, 
and  again  in  mentioning  his  incarnation.  This  is  done, 
too,  in  the  prologue,  where  he  was  writing  independently 
of  the  evangelic  tradition,  and  could  express  without 
restraint  his  individual  views.  Throughout  the  rest  of 
the  Gospel,  however,  other  than  metaphysical  and  specu- 
lative interests  become  dominant,  and  with  all  the  in- 
fluence of  a  dualistic  conception  approaching  Gnosticism, 
he  comes  under  the  sway  of  the  personal  Jesus  as  reve- 
lator,  teacher,  Saviour,  and  Son  of  Man.f  In  Philo  the 
Logos  has  a  place  in  a  highly  speculative  system,  if,  in- 
deed, the  thought  of  the  Alexandrian  may  properly  be 
said  to  constitute  a  system,  while  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the 
metaphysical  Logos  appears  only  in  the  prologue  to  an 
ideal  life  of  Jesus  at  the  basis  of  which  lies  the  conception 
of  the  oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  Accordingly, 
despite  the  abstract  terms  "life"  and  "light  "  which  are 
applied  to  him,  the  Logos  of  the  Gospel  becomes  a  con- 
crete personality  who,  though  not  at  all  conceived  as 
having  an  earthly,  temporal  development  like  the  Jesus 

*  John  iv.  34,  xiv.  13.         .  f  John  i.  51,  iii.  13,  v.  27. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  28$ 

of  the  synoptists,  is  yet  a  human  type  of  piety  and  filial 
submission  to  the  divine  will.  Apart  from  the  idea  of  the 
Logos  as  participating  in  the  creation,  as  God,  and  in  the 
beginning  with  God,  the  metaphysical  coloring  of  the 
Philonic  thought  is  here  wanting,  and  the  Logos  appears 
as  a  representative  of  personal  religion,  of  a  divine-human 
sonship,  and  of  a  mystical-ethical  relationship  to  the 
Father.  He  has  a  personal  mission  to  men,  that  as  many 
as  believe  on  him  may  become  children  of  light.  He  is 
"the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,"  the  source  of  divine 
illumination  and  truth  to  men  among  whom  he  appears, 
heaven-descended,  for  a  brief  time  as  a  teacher  and  guide. 
But  remote  as  the  Christ  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  on  the 
metaphysical  side  from  the  Logos  of  Philo,  he  is  not  less 
far  removed  on  the  historical  side  from  the  Jesus  of  the 
synoptists.  These  writers,  who  based  their  works  upon 
the  recollections  of  eye-witnesses  and  the  Palestinian 
tradition,  could  have  found  no  suggestion  of  the  super- 
human heavenly  Logos  in  their  materials  or  in  their 
environment.  For  the  genesis  of  this  Johannine  concep- 
tion there  was  needed  the  whole  antecedent  develop- 
ment of  the  idealizing  of  the  person  of  Christ — the  ideal 
man  from  heaven  conceived  by  Paul,  who  did  not 
proceed  upon  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  historical 
Jesus,  and  the  deutero-Pauline  enhancement  of  this 
doctrine,  together  with  the  Logos-speculations  of  the 
Alexandrian  philosophy.  The  Johannine  idea  of  Jesus  is 
a  riddle  in  relation  to  the  synoptic  conception  of  him  only 
to  those  who  refuse  to  regard  both  doctrines  historically. 
That  the  preexistence  of  the  Logos  is  fundamental  in 
the  Johannine  Christology  has  already  been  intimated. 
Not  only  is  this  doctrine  laid  down  in  the  speculative 
prologue  to  the  Gospel  in  the  propositions  that  he  was 


286       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"  in  the  beginning  with  God,"  and  was  God,  and  that  the 
world  had  its  becoming  through  him,  but  the  writer  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  himself  the  most  unequivocal 
declarations  of  a  celestial  existence  prior  to  his  appearance 
in  the  flesh.  He  is  made  to  say  that  he  "  came  down 
from  heaven,"  and  to  speak  of  ascending  "  where  he  was 
before."  He  who  came  from  heaven  speaks  not  of  earthly 
things,  but  of  what  "  he  hath  seen  and  heard."  *  Is  he 
charged  with  making  himself  greater  than  Abraham?  His 
answer  is :  "  Before  Abraham  was  I  am."  f  That  he 
should  have  been  conceived  as  inactive  in  his  preexistent 
state  and  without  interest  in  the  work  which  in  the  flesh  he 
was  to  accomplish  is  a  priori  improbable.  He  is,  indeed, 
expressly  said  to  have  had  a  part  in  the  formation  of  the 
world.  While  it  is  not  implied  that,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Hebrews,  he  upheld  all  things  by  the  word  of 
his  power,  it  is  more  than  implied  that  before  entering 
upon  his  work  in  the  world  as  the  incarnate  Son  he  was 
active  in  reference  to  the  foreordained  economy  of  salva- 
tion. The  idea  that  the  Christian  economy  was  foreseen 
and  prepared  before  the  creation  of  the  world  was  already 
current  long  before  the  composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
The  kingdom  was  prepared  "  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  "  ;  the  "  mystery "  of  the  Gospel  was  hidden  for 
generations,  and  "  for  eternal  ages  unrevealed " ;  the 
Christian  believers  were  "  chosen  "  in  Christ  before  the 
creation ;  and  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  was  a  mak- 
ing known  to  "  the  principalities  and  powers  in  the  heavenly 

*  John  iii.  13,  32,  vi.  02. 

f  John  viii.  58.  The  use  of  the  verbs  of  existence  here  is  striking  :  "  Be- 
fore Abraham  became  or  was  born  [yev£(5Qai]  1  am  [el/xi]."  In  eij^iis 
expressed  being  in  itself,  and  the  idea  of  becoming  is  perhaps  excluded. 
That  is,  Jesus  according  to  his  divine  essence  was  before  time  and  without  a 
becoming  such  as  may  be  predicated  of  men. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  287 

regions  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  according  to  His 
purpose  for  ages."  *  Accordingly,  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  regards  the  preexistent  activity  of  the 
Logos  as  dating  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  creation. 
It  would  be  arbitrary  to  suppose  that  man  was  not  in- 
cluded in  the  world  (cosmos)  which  "  became  "  through 
the  agency  of  the  Logos,  and  to  assume  that  the  human 
race  was  thought  to  be  for  ages  without  his  influence. 
Indeed,  the  evangelist  expressly  asserts  that  "  life  "  was 
in  the  Logos,  and  that  "  the  life  was  the  light  of  men." 
Furthermore,  this  "  light"  which  he  was  from  the  begin- 
ning "  hath  been  shining  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness 
received  it  not."  f  The  ethical-religious  illumination 
which  proceeds  from  him  is  conceived  to  have  shone  in 
pre-Christian  times,  for  he  is  the  true  light  which  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  J  so  that  every  one 
may  if  he  will  become  a  child  of  the  light.  Since  the 
Logos  is  the  organ  of  divine  revelation,  he  is  conceived  to 
have  been  active  in  this  capacity  in  pre-Christian  times, 
as  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  translators  of  the  Old 
Testament  regarded  the  Theophanies  of  Hebrew  story  as 
manifestations  of  Deity  through  him  or  simply  as  Logo- 
phanies.  From  the  same  point  of  view  the  author  of 
Hebrews  represents  the  preexistent  Christ  as  speaking 
through  the  prophets  and  psalmists  with  reference  to  his 

*  Matt.  xxv.  34  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  Eph.  i.  4,  iii.  9  ;  Col.  i.  26  ;  i  Peter 
i.  20. 

f  John  i.  4,  5.  The  present  tense,  (pcxtrei,  signifies  "shines  from  the 
beginning  until  now  without  interruption."  See  Meyer.  The  conception  is 
that  of  a  supernatural,  heavenly  <pca<3  which  manifested  itself  through  revela- 
tion and  prophecy. 

\  This  is  the  interpretation  favored  by  most  exegetes,  and  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  sufficient  reason  for  following  with  Noyes  the  rendering  of 
Hilgenfeld,  Ewald,  and  others  :  "  The  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man 
was  coming  into  the  world."  See  Meyer  in  loc. 


288        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

earthly  mission,  and  reveals  the  Alexandrian  influence  not 
only  in  this  conception  but  also  in  the  allegorizing  of  the 
Old  Testament  with  which  he  seeks  to  establish  it.* 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  at  the  time  of  the  composi- 
tion of  the  fourth  Gospel  the  tendency  to  Christianize  the 
Old  Testament  by  an  allegorical  interpretation  which  read 
into  it  prophecies  of  the  circumstances  attending  the  mis- 
sion of  Christ  was  in  full  force.  In  adopting  this  idea  and 
method  the  evangelist  followed  the  example  of  preceding 
writers,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  first  Gospel,  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  Hebrews,  Barnabas,  and  other  writings.  This  ap- 
propriation and  Christianizing  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
the  revealed  word  of  God  answered  an  urgent  need  of  the 
Church  in  the  second  century,  and  we  accordingly  find 
that  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  in  common  with  his  con- 
temporaries saw  its  chief  significance  in  the  supposed 
testimony  which  it  could  be  made  by  the  current  methods 
of  interpretation  to  bear  to  Christ.  Consistently  with  this 
point  of  view  it  is  declared  that  Moses  wrote  of  Christ,f 
while  in  apparent  inconsistency  with  it  an  unconcealed 
hostility  to  the  Jews  leads  the  writer  to  depreciate  the 
law  and  the  entire  Old  Testament  and  to  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  the  harsh  declaration  that  all  the  teachers 
who  had  preceded  him  were  thieves  and  robbers.^  Not 
only  is  Moses  expressly  contrasted  to  his  disadvantage 
with  Christ,  but  the  events  at  Cana  and  the  pool  of  Beth- 
esda  are  perhaps  allegorical  representations  of  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  ancient  economy.  When  he  makes  Jesus 
denounce  the  Jews  as  the  children  of  the  Devil,  the  author 
is  thought  to  follow  the  writer  of  Barnabas  who  attributed 
their  fleshliness  to  the  influence  of  demons,  although  he 

*  Heb.  ii.  12,  13,  x.  5-9.  f  John  v.  46. 

\  John  viii.  44,  i.  17,  v.  39,    x.  8. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  289 

avoids  the  Gnostic  dualism  which  the  latter  approached, 
and  maintains  the  connection  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
economies.  Perhaps  the  inconsistency  which  appears  in 
the  appeal  to  Old-Testament  prophecy  and  the  deprecia- 
tion of  Judaism  and  its  great  law-giver  may  be  explained 
by  the  theory  that  "  the  prophets,  so  far  as  they  correctly 
foretold  the  Christian  economy,  were  thought  to  be  the 
organs  of  revelation  through  whom  the  preexistent  Logos 
expressed  himself,"  while  the  Jewish  religion  in  general  as 
mere  "  law  "  and  rite  was  regarded  as  of  little  worth.  At 
any  rate  the  idea  of  the  preexistent  activity  of  the  Logos 
was  not  unknown  to  the  writer,  and  doubtless  finds  ex- 
pression in  the  words  :  "  I  have  other  sheep  which  are  not 
of  this  fold/'  *  in  which  Jesus  is  made  to  assume  that  the 
light  which  had  from  the  beginning  shone  from  the  Logos 
upon  the  darkness  of  the  world  had  been  effectual  among 
the  heathen,  so  that  there  were  some  of  them  who  were 
children  of  light,  who  belonged  already  inwardly  to  the 
fold  of  the  good  Shepherd,  and  needed  only  to  be 
"  gathered  together."  f  The  revelation  of  the  Logos 
through  the  prophets  is  distinctively  expressed  in  con- 
nection with  a  quotation  from  Isaiah  concerning  the 
hardening  of  the  people's  hearts  toward  Jesus  in  the 
words  :  "  These  things  said  Isaiah  because  he  saw  his 
glory,  and  spake  of  him.":);  This  conception  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
with  that  which  constitutes  its  distinctive  doctrinal  char- 
acter, viz.,  that  the  Logos  was  preexistent  and  immanent 
in  God,  that  he  hypostatically  proceeded  forth  from  Him 
for  the  act  of  creation,  and  then  was  active  as  a  creative, 
life-giving,  illuminating  personal  power,  effecting  in  essen- 


*  John  x.  16.  f  J°hn  >•  5~9  J  **•  52' 

\  John  xii.  41. 


19 


290       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

tial  godlikeness  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  the  spiritual 
realm,  and  finally  completing  that  revelation  in  the  man 
Jesus  Christ.  All  the  revelations  preceding  his  earthly 
manifestation  are,  however,  conceived  as  only  the  twilight 
in  contrast  with  the  dawn.  "  The  sombre  nocturnal 
heavens  of  the  old  covenant  are  sown  with  lights  which 
shine  only  as  reflections  of  the  dawning  daylight  of  the 
New  Testament.  Moses  and  the  prophets  are  only  moon 
and  stars  whose  borrowed  light  testifies  of  the  existence 
of  the  still  invisible  Sun,  before  whose  effulgence  they 
must  finally  pale  and  be  extinguished.  The  last  witness 
is  the  briefly-shining  morning-star  which  announces  the 
approaching  sunrise,  and  which  must  decrease  as  the 
splendors  of  the  Sun  increase."  * 

If,  then,  the  revelation  of  the  Logos  in  his  earthly  mani- 
festation was  thought  to  be  more  glorious  than  that 
effected  by  his  preexistent  activity,  we  should  expect  to 
find  that  his  entrance  upon  human  relations  was  not  re- 
garded as  a  descent  from  his  heavenly  dignity.  In  fact 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not,  like  Paul,  speak 
of  Christ's  mission  in  the  flesh  as  an  humiliation.  The 
declaration  that  the  Logos  became  flesh,  which  is  a  capital 
proposition  of  the  Johannine  doctrine,  does  not  at  all 
imply  the  assumption  by  him  of  a  complete  human  nature. 
Although  the  word  flesh  is  sometimes  employed  in  the 
New  Testament  by  synecdoche  for  the  entire  man,  and 
again  to  designate  the  natural  in  man  as  opposed  to  the 
spiritual,  it  is  usually  applied  to  human  nature  to  distin- 
guish it  as  essentially  a  bodily  organism.  To  become 
flesh,  then,  can  neither  mean  to  become  carnal,  nor  to  be- 
come wholly  man,  but  only  to  assume  a  fleshly  body.  It 
is  true  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel  Jesus  is  made  to  speak 
*  John  iii.  30,  31,  v.  35. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  29  1 

of  laying  down  his  life  for  men,  *  but  that  the  animal  life- 
principle  is  here  intended  is  evident  from  the  use  of  the 
same  term  in  Peter's  declaration:  "  I  will  lay  down  my 
life  for  thee."f  The  ascription  to  Jesus  of  affections  of 
the  soul  or  spirit  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  conception 
by  the  evangelist  of  a  human  soul  as  the  subject  of  the 
trouble  or  emotion.  On  the  contrary,  the  divine  Logos 
as  the  organ  of  revelation  may  very  well  have  been  sup- 
posed to  be  so  related  to  human  nature  as  a  mediator  as  to 
be  capable  of  such  affections  of  the  soul  as  are  attributed  to 
him.  \  The  manner  in  which  the  evangelist  speaks  in  the 
prologue  of  the  two  manifestations  of  the  Logos,  the  pre- 
existent  and  the  earthly,  implies  rather  a  continuity  of 
the  activities  of  an  identical  personality  than  a  becoming 
man  in  the  sense  of  assuming  a  human  soul.  The  incar- 
nation can  hardly  be  said  to  be  conceived  as  denoting  a 
•division  of  the  work  of  the  Logos  into  two  distinct  periods. 
It  is  the  same  subject  that  was  the  light  of  the  world 
shining  upon  its  darkness  from  the  beginning,  and  in  the 
flesh  continuing  his  revealing  and  life-giving  activity. 
The  Logos  became  flesh,  and  took  up  a  temporary  abode 
as  in  a  tent§  among  men.  The  incarnation  of  the  Logos 
appears,  then,  to  have  been  conceived  not  as  an  assump- 
tion by  him  of  a  human  nature  in  its  entirety,  but  as  an 
accident  of  the  personality  of  the  preexistent  divine  Son 
who  in  the  flesh  remained  essentially  the  same  being  as 
before.  There  are  traits  of  the  fourth  Gospel  which  ap- 
pear to  be  traceable  to  this  point  of  view.  In  the  original 
tradition  on  which  the  synoptic  Gospels  are  founded  Jesus 
is  represented  as  a  man,  and  his  endowment  for  his  mission 


*  John  x.  n,  15,  17.     The  word  here  employed  for  life  is 

f  John  xiii.  37.  \  John  xi.  33,  xii.  27,  xiii.  21. 


2Q2        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

is  consummated  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the 
baptism.  A  later  tradition  added  a  supernatural  genera- 
tion. In  this  Gospel,  however,  the  account  of  the  baptism 
is  omitted,  although  a  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  mentioned, 
not  as  an  endowment  of  the  divine  Logos,  but  as  a  sign 
to  John  that  he  might  be  able  to  recognize  him  as  the 
Son  of  God.  *  A  supernatural  generation  could  find  no 
place  in  a  narrative  which  proceeds  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  Christ  whose  earthly  history  is  recorded  was  the 
preexistent  divine  being  who  was  .with  God  in  the  begin- 
ning, and  was  God.  As  the  Logos  he  was  regarded  as 
already  abundantly  endowed,  and  the  process  in  question 
would  naturally  be  thought  to  be  superfluous.  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  idea  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  the 
story  of  the  temptation  is  omitted.  The  prince  of  this 
world  has  nothing  in  him,  and  it  would  be  incongruous 
to  suppose  that  the  great  Logos  could  be  tempted,  as 
well  as  that  a  forty-days'  fasting  and  struggle  in  the 
wilderness  could  be  a  fitting  preparation  for  his  ministry. 
The  Johannine  Christ  has  no  awful  agony  in  Gethsemane, 
and  to  forebodings  of  suffering  and  death  he  gives  no 
expression.  On  the  cross  he  utters  no  heart-broken  cry  of 
a  human  soul  which  feels  itself  abandoned  of  heaven,  but 
majestically  exclaims,  "  It  is  finished,"  and  dies  like  a  god. 
The  employment  of  the  term  "  Son  of  Man  "  in  this 
Gospel  is  not  opposed  to  but  rather  illustrative  of  the 
point  of  view  in  question.  The  use  of  the  term  in  several 
instances  by  the  writer  is  probably  due  to  the  influence 
of  the  synoptic  tradition  of  which  he  could  not  have  been 
independent,  f  But  the  expression  is  not  used  as  in  the 

*  John  i.  33. 

f  The  principal  passages  are  :  i.  52,  iii.  14,  v.  27,  vi.  27,  53,  xii.  23,  34, 
and  xiii.  31. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  293 

synoptics  in  frequent  connection  with  the  lowly  estate  of 
a  wandering  teacher  who  "has  not  where  to  lay  his  head." 
The  idea  of  a  participation  in  human  nature  of  the  one 
who  bears  the  name  is  not  conveyed  by  the  relations  in 
which  it  stands ;  for  although  the  writer  undertook  to 
construct  a  history  of  Jesus,  he  never  loses  sight  of  the 
dominant  dogmatic  purpose  of  his  work  which  is  definitely 
set  forth  in  the  prologue.  The  Son  of  Man  is  represented 
to  Nathaniel  as  one  on  whom  he  shall  see  angels  descend- 
ing from  the  opened  heavens,  that  is  as  the  organ  of 
revelation,  the  Logos,  who  effects  as  a  mediator  communi- 
cation between  the  upper  and  nether  realms.  To  Nico- 
demus  the  Son  of  Man  is  represented  as  the  one  who 
41  came  down  from  heaven."  As  the  celestial  preexistent 
being  he  "  is  in  heaven,"*  that  is,  "he  maintains  even  in 
his  earthly  estate  as  the  incarnate  Logos  the  continuity 
of  his  consciousness  of  God,"  and  is  able  as  no  one  else  to 
give  report  of  "  heavenly  things."  Whatever  may  be  the 
meaning  of  the  much-disputed  passage  :  "  And  He  gave 
him  authority  to  execute  judgment  because  he  is  a  son 
of  man,"  f  the  entire  connection  in  which  the  words  stand 
indicates  a  purpose  to  exalt  Jesus  in  accordance  with  the 
dogmatic  aim  of  the  Gospel.  He  is  the  Son,  the  Son  of 
God,  to  whom  belongs  the  honor  which  men  give  to  the 
Father,  and  at  the  sound  of  whose  voice  the  dead  will 
come  forth  from  their  graves.  \  The  most  that  can  be 
said  of  the  term  in  this  connection  is  that  it  designates 
the  Logos,  a  human  phenomenon  in  the  capacity  of  judge, 
as  the  representative  of  the  hidden  God  who  "judges  no 
man,"  or  in  other  words,  the  relative  humanity  of  him 

*  John  iii.  13. 

f  John  v.  27,  "a  son  of  a  man,"  the  usual  article  is  omitted. 

\  John  v.  23,  28,  29. 


294        THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

who  is  the  Son  of  God — a  conception  whose  Philonic 
origin  is  evident.  The  words :  "  Truly,  truly  do  I  say  to 
you,  unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink 
his  blood  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  *  stand  in  connection 
with  the  declaration  that  Christ  is  "  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven,"  and  the  term  Son  of 
Man  is  employed  with  a  doctrinal  significance  similar  to 
that  conveyed  in  the  latter  words  which  accord  with  the 
point  of  view  of  the  prologue.  The  heaven-descended 
one  gives  the  true  bread,  and  they  who  appropriate  him 
in  faith  will  have  eternal  life,  f 

The  words  already  quoted  from  the  Gospel  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  its  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of  the  Logos 
confirm  the  view  here  presented  of  the  continuity  of  his 
existence  and  nature  in  the  heavenly  and  earthly  abodes. 
He  who  was  upon  the  earth  as  Jesus  is  conceived  as  the 
one  who  was  before  in  heaven,  and  "  came  down  "  thence. 
There  is  no  intimation,  either  in  the  words  which  express 
the  individual  reflections  of  the  evangelist,  or  in  those  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Christ,  that  the  writer  thought  of  the 
doctrine  that  the  Jesus  of  history  was  the  preexistent 
Logos  united  with  a  human  spirit.  The  expression,  "the 
Logos  became  flesh,"  simply  means  that  he  who  was  "  with 
God  "  and  "  was  God  "  assumed  a  human  body.  It  is- 
evident  that  in  the  study  of  the  doctrines  of  this  Gospel 
one  cannot  without  great  arbitrariness  distinguish  between 
the  reflections  of  the  evangelist  and  the  words  which  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Christ.  The  latter  have  the 
appearance  of  being  free  compositions  of  the  writer,  since 
the  extended  and  involved  discourses  which  are  attributed 

*  John  vi.  53. 

\  Meyei  regards  the  words  "  of  the  Son  of  Man,"  as  equivalent  to 
*•  of  me." 


THE  JOHANNIXE    TRANSFOKMA  TION.  295 

to  Jesus  cannot  have  been  transmitted  by  tradition  like 
the  pithy,  aphoristic  sayings  recorded  by  the  synoptists. 
The  entire  work  bears  the  impress  of  one  mind,  and  the 
discourses  have  been  happily  characterized  as  variations 
on  the  theme  contained  in  the  prologue.  The  problem 
how  the  divine,  preexistent  Logos  assumed  a  human 
body  is  not  solved  by  the  fourth  evangelist.  It  does  not 
even  appear  to  have  been  thought  of  by  him.  Two  rep- 
resentations of  Jesus,  that  of  the  prologue  and  that  of 
the  synoptic  tradition,  stand  side  by  side  throughout  the 
Gospel  without  an  attempt  to  reconcile  them,  one  may. 
even  say  without  a  conceivable  reconciliation.  With  the 
utmost  naivete  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been  in  "  glory  "  with 
the  Father  "  before  the  world  was,"  to  have  "  come  down 
from  heaven,"  *  and  yet  to  have  had  a  mother  and 
brothers,  even  Joseph  as  father,  f  The  Logos  become 
flesh  is  identified  with  the  historical  Jesus  of  Nazareth,;): 
and  made  to  appear  as  a  human  personality  after  the, 
manner  of  the  synoptic  tradition  with  respect  at  least  to 
his  descent  from  earthly  parents,  without,  however,  any 
intimation  of  a  supernatural  generation.  While  this  in- 
congruity does  not  admit  of  solution,  it  may  perhaps  be 
explained  in  its  genesis  as  the  inevitable  result  of  an 
attempt  to  unite  in  one  representation  the  historical 
Jesus  with  the  Philonic  conception  of  the  heavenly  Logos 
from  a  point  of  view  which  borders  very  closely  on  the 
Gnostic  doctrine  of  Christ  as  actual  personality  composed 
of  the  man  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the  heavenly  aeon 
united  with  him  at  the  baptism.  Yet  the  predominance 
of  the  idea  that  he  was  the  Logos  in  the  flesh  is  apparent 

*  John  xvii.  5,  vi.  38. 

f  John  ii.  i  f.,  12,  vi.  42,  vii.  3,  5,  xix.  25,  26. 

\  John  i.  46. 


296       THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

even  when  the  writer  approaches  most  nearly  to  the 
representation  of  him  as  a  human  personality.  For  in 
connection  with  the  passages  in  which  the  writer  makes 
him  speak  of  his  dependence  upon  the  Father  appears 
the  declaration  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he,  *  from 
which  it  is  evident  that  his  dependence  upon  God  is  not 
that  of  a  man.  The  writer  could  not  have  made  him  say 
that  God  is  greater  than  a  man,  but  the  intention  is  obvi- 
ous to  teach  that  Christ  notwithstanding  his  oneness  with 
God  stood  in  a  relation  of  subordination  to  Him.f 

The  Johannine  doctrine  of  salvation  constitutes  a 
striking  feature  of  this  type  of  New-Testament  teaching. 
In  its  fundamental  characteristics  it  is  related  to  the  dual- 
istic  conception  of  the  opposition  of  light  and  darkness, 
and  consists  in  the  overcoming  of  the  latter  through  the 
self-revelation  of  the  Logos.  The  Logos  is  the  light 
which  from  the  beginning  illuminates  every  man  that 
comes  into  the  world,  and  on  his  part  the  manifestation 
of  himself  is  a  saving  efficacy.  On  the  part  of  men  it  is 
faith  in  him  who  has  come  as  a  light  into  the  world  which 
saves  them  from  the  realm  of  darkness,  for  whoever  be- 
lieves does  not  "  remain  in  the  darkness."  \  As  many  as 
believe  in  him  become  sons  of  God,  have  eternal  life,  and 
do  not  come  into  judgment. §  Now,  since  the  degree  of 
faith  depends  upon  the  intensity  with  which  its  object  is 
presented,  a  vivid  manifestation  and  a  persistent  "  glorify- 

*  John  xiv.  28  ;  cf.  iv.  34,  v.  30,  viii.  29,  xv.  10,  xvii.  4. 

f  The  doctrine  maintained  by  Baur  that  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
intended  to  represent  the  flesh  of  Christ  as  not  that  of  a  human  body  "in  its 
true  and  full  sense,"  in  other  words,  that  he  held  the  Docetic  conception  of 
the  body  of  Christ  as  apparent  only  but  not  real,  is  hardly  defensible.  It 
rests  upon  such  passages  as  vii.  10,  viii.  59,  x.  39,  vi.  16,  all  of  which  admit 
of  satisfactory  explanation  without  this  hypothesis. 

\  John  vii.  46.  §  John  v.  24,  vi.  47. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TION.  297 

ing "  of  Christ  might  be  expected  to  form  a  prominent 
feature  of  this  soteriology.  In  fact  we  find  that  the  exal- 
tation of  his  person  is  a  leading  object  of  the  Gospel,  that 
all  that  relates  to  salvation  is  intimately  connected  with 
him  whose  word  is  a  fountain  of  "  living  water,"  and  that 
the  greatest  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  necessity  of  "  re- 
ceiving "  him  into  the  consciousness  of  the  believer,  the 
appropriation  of  him  as  "  the  bread  of  life."  They  who 
will  be  saved  must,  however,  carry  on  a  continuous  con- 
flict with  the  unbelieving  world  which  will  hate  them  as 
it  hated  the  Son  of  God.  Corresponding  to  the  great 
antithesis  of  light  and  darkness  is  the  antithesis  of  belief 
and  unbelief,  and  only  in  so  far  as  the  light  flashing  upon 
the  darkness  illuminates  the  souls  which  are  susceptible 
to  it,  and  causes  them  to  "  come  to  "  it,  is  the  dominion 
of  unbelief  and  of  the  prince  of  this  world  overcome. 

So  far  as  the  teachings  of  J  esus  are  regarded  as  one  of  the 
principal  means  of  accomplishing  his  saving  work,  they  have 
according  to  the  point  of  view  of  this  Gospel  a  distinctive 
reference  to  his  person,  the  absolute  significance  of  which  is 
the  prominent  theme  of  his  discourses.  This  significance 
does  not,  however,  lie  as  with  Paul  chiefly  in  the  closing 
acts  of  his  career,  but  in  his  revelation  of  the  truth,  es- 
pecially as  to  the  Father's  will  and  love.  The  doctrine 
laid  down  in  the  discourse  addressed  to  Nicodemus  that 
unless  a  man  be  "  born  from  above  "  he  cannot  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  serves  to  introduce  and  emphasize 
the  teaching  that  such  "  heavenly  things  "  are  to  be  known 
through  the  testimony  of  the  Son  of  Man  "  who  came 
down  from  heaven,"  and  testifies  that  which  he  has  seen.* 
The  teaching  communicated  to  the  woman  of  Samaria 
reaches  its  culmination  in  the  exaltation  of  the  person  of 

*  John  iii.  n,  13. 


298        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Jesus  as  the  one  able  to  supply  the  "  living  water  "  which 
will  be  to  him  who  drinks  of  it  "  a  well  of  water  spring- 
ing up  into  everlasting  life."  *  In  the  extended  discourse 
in  the  fifth  chapter  Jesus  is  not  only  charged  by  the  Jews 
with  making  himself  equal  with  God,  but  proceeds  to  fur- 
nish at  least  the  appearance  of  a  justification  of  the 
charge  by  identifying  his  "  raising  up  the  dead  "  and  "  giv- 
ing life  "  with  the  divine  activities,  and  by  claiming  such 
honor  as  men  accord  to  the  Father.  Hearing  him  and 
believing  in  God  are  declared  to  be  the  two  apparently 
equally  important  conditions  of  attaining  everlasting  life.f 
The  spiritually  dead  will  hear  in  the  hour  that  is  coming 
and  now  is  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  who 
hear,  that  is,  shall  have  given  attention,  will  live.  The 
qualification  for  this  mighty  work  is  declared  to  reside  in 
the  life  which  the  Son  has  in  himself,  as  God  has  life  in 
Himself.  Yet  the  hearers  are  told  not  to  marvel  at  this, 
for  the  marvellous  performance  is  to  be  the  calling  forth 
into  life  of  all  the  bodily  dead  ;  "  The  hour  is  coming  in 
which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  will  hear  his  voice,  and 
will  come  forth,  they  who  have  done  good  to  a  resurrec- 
tion of  life,  and  they  who  have  done  evil  to  a  resurrection 
of  condemnation."  \  This  general  conception  is  further 
elaborated  in  what  follows,  and  Jesus  is  shown  to  be  not 
only  the  life-giving  principle,  but  the  nourishment  and 
support  of  all  spiritual  life  under  the  figure  of  "the  true 
bread  from  heaven  "  which  Moses  did  not  give.  To  come 
to  him  is  never  to  hunger  and  to  believe  in  him  is  never 
to  thirst.  In  his  personality  as  the  Logos  become 
flesh  there  are  for  those  who  will  feed  upon  him  spiritual 
health,  nourishment,  and  life.  The  bread  which  he  will 
give  for  the  life  of  the  world  is  his  flesh  ;  for  he  is  not 

*  John  iv.  14.  |  John  v.  23  f.  *  John  v.  28,  29. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  299 

merely  the  Logos  but,  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  the  Logos 
in  the  flesh,  so  that  what  he  is  to  them  as  the  bread  of 
life  is  designated  as  flesh,  and  even  as  flesh  and  blood. 
He  who  eats  his  flesh  and  drinks  his  blood  has  everlasting 
life,  and  he  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  In  his 
manifestation  in  human  flesh  he  is  solely  and  absolutely 
the  life  of  the  world.  He  who  will  receive  him  as  such 
by  faith,  that  is,  will  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood,  will 
dwell  in  Christ,  and  Christ  will  dwell  in  him.  His  one- 
ness with  God,  that  absolute  glorification  of  his  person 
which  is  a  distinguishing  feature  of  this  Gospel,  is  indi- 
cated in  the  bold  saying :  "  As  I  live  by  reason  of  the 
Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me  shall  live  by  reason  of  me." 
The  divine  life-principle  is  identical  in  both,  "  and  this  is 
the  will  of  the  Father  that  every  one  that  looketh  on  the 
Son  and  believeth  in  him  shall  have  everlasting  life."  * 
In  the  development  and  application  of  the  conception  of 
"  light "  which  the  evangelist  makes  fundamental  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  nature  and  mission  of  Christ  the  em- 
phasis is  not  laid  so  much  upon  the  teachings  us  upon  the 
personality  of  the  Logos.  While  in  the  synoptic  Gospels 
the  doctrines  and  the  example  of  Jesus  are  placed  in  the 
foreground,  we  find  here  the  obtrusive  purpose  to  give 
prominence  to  his  personality.  He  himself  is  the  light 
of  the  world,  and  he  who  follows  him  will  not  walk  in 
darkness,  but  will  have  the  light  of  life.  As  long  as  he 
is  in  the  world  he  is  the  light  of  the  world. f  Even  the 
so-called  "  new  "  commandment  that  the  disciples  should 
love  pne  another  is  brought  into  relation  to  his  person. 
They  are  commanded  to  love  one  another  as  he  had  loved 
them,  he  who  gave  them  an  example  of  self-devotion  in 
the  act  of  washing  their  feet, — an  act  whose  significance 

*John  vi.  34-58  f  John  viii.   12,  ix.  4. 


300       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

was  immeasurably  great  by  reason  of  the  greatness  of 
the  condescension  of  the  doer, — he  who  gave  his  flesh  as 
the  bread  of  life  for  the  world  in  a  love  than  which  no  man 
has  a  greater.*  The  authority  with  which  he  commands 
rests  upon  the  importance  of  his  person.  Well  may  his 
followers  do  what  he  bids  and  does  who  is  in  such  a  rela- 
tion to  God  that  his  love  for  them  is  comparable  to  that 
of  the  Father  for  him.  f 

In  accordance  with  the  doctrine  that  belief  in  Christ  is 
essential  to  salvation,  his  works  as  well  as  his  teachings 
are  exhibited  for  the  purpose  of  glorifying  his  person.  As 
proofs  of  what  he  is  his  works  are  called  "  signs,"  \  or 
revelations  of  his  divine  nature  and  glory  ;  and  since  he  can 
do  nothing  but  what  he  sees  the  Father  do,  all  his  works 
have  a  supernatural  character.  They  are  the  expression 
of  his  divine  nature,  are  such  as  no  one  has  ever  done,  are 
works  in  fact  which  the  Father  accomplishes  through  him, 
and  are  evidences  of  his  supernatural  mission,  for  the  sake 
of  which  those  must  believe  who  will  not  believe  on 
account  of  his  words.  §  The  unbelief  of  the  Jews  is  declared 
to  be  especially  censurable  because  of  the  signs  which  he 
had  shown  them,]  and  the  miracles  are  said  to  be  done 
for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory  and  that  of  the  Father.  If 
In  the  case  of  a  healing  performed  on  the  Sabbath  he  is 
not  only  made  to  say  that  he  is  on  an  equal  footing  with 
God,  in  that  like  Him  he  works  regardless  of  days,  but 
the  explicit  declaration  is  put  into  his  mouth  that  he  has 
a  better  testimony  than  that  of  John,  for  :  "  The  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  perform,  the  works 

*John  xiii.  34,  4-16,  xv.  13. 

f  John  xv.  9.  \  Gratia. 

§  John  v.  17  f.,  xiv.  10,  xv.  24,  x.  38. 

I  John  x.  32,  xii.  37.  TJohn  ii.  n,  xi.  4,  40. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  3OI 

themselves  which  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me  that  the  Father 
hath  sent  me."  *  In  the  account  of  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  nothing  is  said  of  Jesus'  "compassion  "  for  the 
multitudes,  f  for  the  Logos  of  this  Gospel  is  not  repre- 
sented, like  the  Jesus  of  the  synoptics,  as  having  the  senti- 
ment of  pity,  but  the  sign  is  brought  into  connection  with 
a  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  as  "  the  bread  of  God," 
"  coming  down  from  heaven  and  giving  life  to  the  world."  \ 
The  account  of  the  marvellous  cure  of  a  man  born  blind  is 
introduced  with  the  announcement  of  the  remarkable 
teleological  declaration  that  he  was  so  born  in  order  that 
"  the  works  of  God  might  be  made  manifest  in  him,"  and 
the  performance  of  this  "  sign  "  is  made  the  occasion  of 
repeating  the  statement  of  the  favorite  doctrine  of  the 
writer  that  Jesus  is  "  the  light  of  the  world."  §  The  greatest 
of  all  the  signs  that  Jesus  is  reported  in  this  record  to  have 
wrought,  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  is  said  to  have  been  done 
for  the  purpose  of  causing  the  disciples  and  "  the  multi- 
tude standing  around  "  to  "  believe,"  and  is  recorded  in 
order  to  introduce  a  new  doctrine  of  his  person.  He  was 
glad  that  he  was  not  present  with  Lazarus  during  his  ill- 
ness, that  the  disciples  may  believe,  and  at  the  grave  he 
prays  in  order  that  the  multitude  may  believe,  when  they 
shall  see  the  prayer  answered,  that  he  was  sent  of  God  ; 
and  the  doctrine  that  the  Logos  is  life  and  by  his  power 
is  able  to  overcome  death  is  expressed  in  the  words  :  "  I 
am  the  resurrection  and  the  life  ;  he  that  believeth  in  me, 
though  he  have  died  will  live,  and  whoever  liveth  and 
believeth  in  me  will  never  die."  Thus  the  principal  signs 
reported  in  this  Gospel  serve  to  glorify  Christ  and  to  set 
forth  from  different  points  of  view  the  greatness  and 

*  John  v.  36.  f  Matt.  xiv.  14  ;  Mark  vi.  34. 

\  John  vii.  32.  §  John  ix.  5,  cf.  i.  4,  viii.  12. 


302        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

divine  significance  of  his  person  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
produce  in  men  that  faith  in  him  which  is  the  indispensable 
condition  of  their  salvation.  It  is  a  total  misapprehension 
of  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  to  sup- 
pose that  he  records  the  wonderful  works  of  Christ  either 
as  deeds  of  benevolence  or  simply  as  historical  facts.  They 
are  intended  as  evidences  of  his  divine  mission  and 
authority,  proofs  that  the  Father  sent  him,  and  reasons 
why  men  should  believe  in  him  and  be  saved. 

As  the  death  of  Jesus  was  the  culmination  of  his  earthly 
career,  so  the  exaltation  of  his  person  and  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  power  and  saving  efficacy  are  represented  in 
this  Gospel  as  reaching  in  this  event  their  highest  point. 
In  view  of  the  approaching  tragedy  Jesus  is  made  to  ex- 
claim :  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come  ;  glorify  Thy  Son,  that 
Thy  Son  may  also  glorify  Thee."*  In  being  "  lifted  up  "  f 
Jesus  is  represented  as  not  merely  raised  upon  the  cross, 
but  as  attaining  the  acme  of  his  spiritual  elevation  and 
attractive  power.  He  is  accordingly  made  to  say  that  "  as 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  must  the 
Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that  every  one  who  believeth  in 
him  may  have  everlasting  life."  Exalted  as  a  spectacle  to 
mankind  in  this  supreme  glorification,  he  will  draw  all  men 
unto  him.  \  Instead  of  being  an  hour  of  humiliation  and 
ignominy  the  hour  of  his  death  is  that  in  which  the  Son 
of  Man  is  to  be  '*  glorified."  From  this  event  dates  the 
highest  fruitfulness  of  his  mission,  for  "unless  a  grain  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  itself  abideth  alone; 
but  if  it  die  it  beareth  much  fruit."  §  The  powers  of  dark- 
ness which  had  arrayed  themselves  against  him  during  his 
life,  and  opposed  him  as  "  the  light  of  men,"  gather  in  the 

*John  xvii.  i,  .r/xii.  28.  f  vrpovoQai. 

JJohn  iii.  14,  xii.  32.  §  John  xii.  23,  24. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  303 

last  hours  to  effect  his  defeat.  The  Devil  enters  into 
Judas,*  and  the  Jews  who  are  "  the  children  of  the  Devil" 
plot  his  downfall.  But  in  the  approaching  tragedy  which 
his  terrestrial  and  infernal  enemies  think  will  be  the  con- 
summation of  his  overthrow  he  sees  the  discomfiture  of 
the  former  and  the  dethronement  of  the  latter.  "  Now," 
he  exclaims,  "  is  the  judgment  of  this  world  ;  now  will  the 
prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out."  \  As  the  more  he  be- 
comes an  object  of  faith  to  men,  the  more  does  the  power 
of  the  Evil  One  diminish,  so  in  this  act  of  spiritual  exalta- 
tion in  which  he  gives  his  flesh  as  "  the  bread  of  life  "  for 
the  world  he  sees  the  beginning  of  the  downfall  of  Satan 
and  of  an  ever-widening  sway  of  the  dominion  of  his  own 
truth  and  spirit,  which  will  be  consummated  only  when 
"  all  men  "  shall  have  been  "  drawn  "  to  him. 

As  the  Johannine  Christ,  the  Logos  who  was  with  God 
"  in  the  beginning,"  and  "  was  God,"  is  essentially  a  dif- 
ferent conception  from  that  of  the  Pauline  second  Adam 
and  the  man  from  heaven,  so  his  work  in  the  world  and 
his  relation  to  men  as  Saviour  stand  in  fundamental  con- 
trast to  the  doctrine  of  salvation  elaborated  by  Paul.  Not 
inconsistent  with  this  is,  however,  the  fact  that  the  fourth 
Gospel  shows  the  influence  of  the  Pauline  thought.  But 
Paulinism,  as  a  whole,  does  not  constitute  its  point  of 
view.  To  one  who  had  left  Judaism  and  the  law  so  far 
behind  him  as  this  writer  had  it  is  evident  that  a  doctrine 
which  was  so  much  occupied  with  and  determined  by 
them  as  was  Paul's  could  have  only  a  slight  importance. 
That  he  accepted,  however,  the  Pauline  teaching  of  the 
universal  destination  and  mission  of  Christianity  is  as 
plain  as  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  a  matter  to  be  argued 
about  in  the  manner  of  Paul.  To  him  Christ  is  the  light 
*John  xiii.  27.  f  John  xii.  31. 


304        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

of  the  world,  who  lights  every  man  that  comes  into  it. 
He  regards  Jesus  as  dying  not  for  the  Jews  only,  but  that 
he  may  also  "  gather  together  in  one  body  the  children  of 
God  who  are  scattered  abroad."  *  Even  in  Samaria  he 
sees  the  fields  already  "  white  for  the  harvest."  f  It  is 
true  that  in  apparent  inconsistency  with  this  universalism 
he  distinctively  declares  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  em- 
ploys the  Jewish  designation  of  his  person,  \  which  is  not 
elsewhere  used  in  the  New  Testament.  But  his  Christ 
has  no  national  characteristics  or  limitations,  and  the 
mention  of  him  as  of  the  seed  of  David  occurs  only  as 
the  expression  of  a  Jewish  opinion.  §  It  is  evident  that 
the  writer  occupied  the  point  of  view  of  a  time  when  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  man  to  God,  and  of 
the  office  and  work  of  Christ  in  salvation,  held  no  promi- 
nent place  in  Christian  thought.  We  have  already  seen 
that  this  teaching  in  the  extreme  and  abstract  form  in 
which  it  was  presented  by  the  apostle  appeared  to  be 
losing  ground  in  the  deutero-Pauline  literature,  and  it  is 
not  surprising  that  a  writer  who  held  such  an  attitude 
toward  the  law  as  did  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
should  not  have  regarded  the  deliverance  of  men  from 
obligations  to  it  as  constituting  an  important  feature  of 
the  saving  work  of  Christ.  Nothing  could  be  more  incon- 
gruous with  the  Johannine  conception  of  the  work  of 
Christ  than  the  Pauline  idea  that  in  his  death  he  removed 
•the  curse  of  the  law,  and  representatively  satisfied  its 
claims  upon  the  human  race.  The  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  occupy,  indeed,  both  historically  and  doctrinally, 
a  prominent  place  in  this  Gospel,  but  they  have  not  the 
almost  exclusive  prominence  which  Paul  accords  to  them. 

*  John  xi.  52.  f  John  iv.  35. 

\  MrrtdtaS,  i.  44,  iv.  25.  §  John  vii.  42. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TJON.  3°5 

Here  the  chief  thing  is  the  whole  personality  of  Christ 
who,  as  the  organ  of  revelation  and  the  manifestation  of 
God,  communicates  life  and  light  to  those  who  are  recep- 
tive of  them.  He  is  the  bread  of  God  which  those  who 
eat  will  never  die,  the  vine  whose  life-giving  sap  is  com- 
municated to  those  who  abide  in  him,  and  apart  from 
vital  union  with  whom  men  can  bear  no  fruit.*  In  the 
discourse  of  the  Baptizer  it  is,  indeed  said,  that  Jesus  is 
11  the  lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  f 
but  this  expression  has  not  the  sense  of  the  Pauline  repre- 
sentative death.  Rather  it  is  to  be  interpreted  in  accord- 
ance with  the  dominant  idea  of  the  Gospel  as  referring  to 
the  moral-spiritual  influence  of  his  whole  personality  and 
work  by  which  sin  was  overcome  and  removed  in  those 
who  received  him.  The  Gospel  has,  indeed,  a  doctrine  of 
faith,  but  no  doctrine  of  the  acceptance  of  men  as  right- 
eous through  faith  in  the  specific  Pauline  sense  of  the 
words.  The  personal  relation  of  men  to  the  living  Christ 
is  vividly  presented  in  the  words  "  receive,"  "  hear,"  and 
"  come,"  which  may  be  regarded  as  standing  for  "  be- 
lieve." ^  Hence  the  Pauline  opposition  of  faith  and 
works  finds  no  place  in  the  thought  of  the  writer  of  this 
Gospel.  In  adapting  the  gospel  of  Jesus  to  Hellenistic 
thinking  he  had  no  use  for  the  great  apostle's  polemic 
against  Judaism.  He  had  advanced  far  beyond  this 
point  of  view,  which,  indeed,  although  adapted  to  its 
time,  was  too  one-sided  and  ideal  in  its  disregard  of  the 
living  personality  of  Jesus  to  answer  the  practical  needs 
amid  which  the  fourth  Gospel  was  written.  It  comports 
with  this  practical  point  of  view,  indeed,  that  the  writer 


*  John  xv.  1,4.  t  J°hn  i-  J9- 

\  John  i.  n,  12,  iii.  n,   32,  v.  43,  xii.  48,  xiii.  20,  viii.  43,  47,  x.  3,  16, 

xviii.  37,  vi.  35,  37,  vii.  37. 

20 


306       THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

disposes  of  the  conflict  between  faith  and  works  by 
making  faith  itself  a  work.  When  Jesus  is  asked  by  cer- 
tain of  the  multitude :  "  What  are  we  to  do  that  we  may 
work  the  works  of  God?"  he  is  made  to  answer:  "  This 
is  the  work  of  God  that  ye  believe  in  him  whom  He 
sent."  * 

It  would  appear,  then,  to  be  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  this  wonderful  Gospel  that  while  it  surpasses  Paulinism 
in  exalting  the  person  of  Christ,  it  furnishes  a  much- 
needed  supplement,  one  may  even  say  a  correction,  of 
the  great  apostle's  doctrine  of  salvation  by  bringing 
Christian  soteriology  down  out  of  the  region  of  abstract 
speculation  in  which  he  had  placed  it,  and  establishing  it 
upon  a  practical,  rational  basis.  In  giving  prominence  to 
the  personality  of  Christ  on  the  divine  side  of  salvation 
it  is  consistent  with  its  characteristic  Logos-idea,  while  in 
putting  emphasis  upon  works  on  the  human  side  it  de- 
notes a  tendency  to  a  return  to  the  primitive  historical 
Christian  conception  of  the  relation  of  man  to  God  which 
is  set  forth  in  the  synoptical  account  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus.  It  introduces,  however,  a  new  principle  which, 
since  there  is  slight  trace  of  it  in  the  synoptic  tradition, 
can  hardly  have  received  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  the  em- 
phasis which  is  here  laid  upon  it.  This  principle  is  that 
of  personal  attachment,  love,  and  devotion  to  Jesus  as  an 
impulse  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  life.  Accordingly, 
Jesus  is  made  to  say  to  his  disciples :  "  If  ye  love  me,  ye 
will  keep  my  commandments  "  ;  "  He  who  hath  my  com- 
mandments and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  who  loveth  me; 
and  he  who  loveth  me  will  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I 
will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  to  him."  f  Like- 
wise obedience  to  him  confirms  the  abiding  in  his  love : 

*  John  vi.  28,  29.  f  John  xiv.  15,   21. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMA  TJON.  307 

41  As  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I  loved  you  ; 
abide  in  my  love.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments  ye  will 
abide  in  my  love,  even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  com- 
mandments and  abide  in  his  love."  *  Keeping  the  com- 
mandments or  doing  that  which  accords  with  the  will  of 
God  and  of  Christ  is  thus  made  a  matter  of  paramount 
importance  with  respect  to  the  relation  of  man  to  God. 
While  Paul  places  faith  foremost,  and  regards  love  as  the 
expression  of  it,f  here  love  is  first,  and  is  the  spring  of  the 
activity  by  which  the  commandments  are  kept.  The 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  impossibility  of  obedience  finds 
no  expression,  but  rather  it  is  taught  that  the  highest 
spiritual  attainments  are  within  the  reach  of  him  in  whom 
abides  the  life-giving  principle  of  love.  He  who  loves 
Jesus  is  able  to  do  all  that  Jesus  requires,  and  among  the 
requirements  which  he  makes  of  his  disciples  is  this,  that 
they  love  one  another.  In  accordance  with  the  general 
principles  of  this  Gospel  the  sphere  of  human  activity  is 
here  connected  with  the  divine  Source  of  all  good  through 
the  mediation  of  the  Logos,  and  human  love  receives  its 
supreme  authentication  in  the  love  of  Christ  for  the 
Father  and  the  Father's  love  for  him.  Source  and  high- 
est type  of  love  is  that  love  which  the  Father  had  for  the 
Son  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Because  God 
loved  the  world  the  Son  was  sent  forth  from  His  bosom, 
and  those  who  are  drawn  to  him  as  the  light  of  men  he 
loves  as  the  Father  loves  him.  As  the  Son  out  of  his 
love  for  the  Father  does  all  that  the  Father  requires,^  so 
•out  of  their  love  for  him  should  and  can  his  followers 
fulfil  his  requirements.  As  he  is  one  with  God,  so  he 
prays  that  all  believers  "  may  be  one  ;  as  Thou  Father 
art  in  me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  may  also  be  in  us,  that 

*  John  xv,  9,  TO.  f  Gal.  v.  6.  \  John  xiv.  31. 


308        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  world  may  believe  that  Thou  didst  send  me.*  "  Thus 
will  be  given  them  the  "  glory  "  which  God  has  given  to 
him,  because  they  are  "perfect  in  one."f  As  the  Son's 
performance  of  his  work  is  conditional  upqn  his  one- 
ness with  God,  so  his  followers  must  in  order  to 
"  bear  fruit  "  remain  in  oneness  with  him,  "  the 
true  vine. "  The  love  of  believers  for  Christ  has 
its  fruition  in  a  state  of  supreme  blessedness  which 
is  nothing  less  than  the  enjoyment  of  a  special  ex- 
pression of  the  divine  love  and  a  dwelling  of  God  and 
Christ  with  them  :  "  If  any  man  love  me  he  will  keep  my 
word,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  to 
him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him.";);  This  conception 
is  a  transformation  of  the  Old-Testament  theocratic  idea 
of  the  dwelling  of  Jahveh  with  His  people  on  condition 
of  their  keeping  His  commandments  ;§  but  here  the 
divine  manifestation  is  that  of  the  Logos  in  the  flesh, 
and  the  abiding  of  God  is  not  in  the  temple  and  in  Zion, 
but  a  personal  indwelling  in  the  individual  soul  who  keeps 
the  commandments,  not  by  reason  of  an  external  decree, 
but  through  a  loving  union  with  the  Son.  But  the  cul- 
mination of  man's  blessedness  through  Christ  is  reached 
in  a  relation  to  God  analogous  to  that  which  the  Son  him- 
self holds.  Through  the  mediation  of  Christ  those  who 
are  united  with  him  in  faith  and  love  are  given  "  power  to 
become  children  of  God."  They  are  born  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 
God.  ||  This  new  generation  by  which  the  moral  and 
spiritual  character  is  transformed  is  probably  the  same 

*  John  xvii.  21.  f  John  xvii,  23,  24. 

\  John  xiv.  23. 

§  Lev.  xxvii.  3,  n  ;  Ps.  cxxxii.  13,  14  ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  27. 

|  John  i.  12,  13. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  309 

as  the  being  born  from  above,  without  which  a  man  can- 
not see  the  kingdom  of  God.* 

In  this  highest  conception  of  the  Johannine  thought, 
the  doctrine  of  love,  is  apparent  its  contrast  with  the  Pau- 
line theory  of  salvation.  In  the  former  man  is  conceived 
to  be  brought  by  love  into  immediate  union  with  Christ, 
and  through  him  into  harmony  with  God  and  divine  son- 
ship.  Through  love  he  is  able  to  keep  the  command- 
ments of  Christ  and  do  the  will  of  God.  But  to  Paul 
there  stood  in  the  way  of  the  consummation  of  this  sim- 
ple and  natural  relation  the  obstacle  of  the  law  and  the 
doctrine  that  righteousness  is  unattainable  by  works.  The 
law  has  its  claims  which  must  be  satisfied,  its  ransom 
which  must  be  paid.  Since  this  condition  is  conceived  to 
be  met  by  the  death  of  Christ,  this  event  becomes  the 
factor  in  salvation  which  is  of  central  importance.  Hence 
the  faith  directed  to  the  cross  and  the  problem  of  the  re- 
lation of  faith  and  works  in  reference  to  the  acceptance 
of  men  as  righteous,  or  the  doctrine  of  justification.  In 
the  Johannine  doctrine,  however,  such  a  conception  of  the 
importance  of  the  death  of  Christ  could  find  no  place. 
For  although  the  author  maintains,  as  has  previously 
been  remarked,  a  connection  of  Christianity  with  the  Old 
Testament,  declares  Moses  to  have  written  of  Christ,  and 
believes  that  the  preexistent  Logos  was  manifested  to 
the  prophets,  yet  his  attitude  toward  the  law  as  an  in- 
stitution was  one  of  such  lofty  disregard  that  its  claims 
appeared  to  him  of  slight  importance.  To  him  Christ 
exerts  a  saving  activity,  not  especially  in  his  death,  as  to 
Paul,  but  in  his  whole  earthly  mission  and  in  the  total  in- 
fluence of  his  personality.  He  is  "  the  bread  of  God,"  the 


,  iii.  3. 


310       THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

light  of  the  world,  to  those  who  "  receive  "  him  he  gives 
power  to  become  the  children  of  God,  and  the  water 
which  he  supplies  quenches  forever  the  thirst  of  the  soul. 
As  living  and  self-communicating,  as  the  source  of  spirit- 
ual illumination  and  quickening,  as  the  divine  Logos  who 
brings  God  into  relation  with  men,  and  men  through  love 
for  him  into  oneness  with  the  Father,  and  not  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  mankind  dying  to  abrogate  an  out-grown 
"  law,"  is  he  the  Saviour  of  men  according  to  this  new 
Hellenistic  system  of  thought.  It  must  be  regarded  as 
the  good  fortune  of  Christianity  that  the  author  of  this 
Gospel,  following  and  surpassing  the  deutero-Pauline 
writers,  presented  a  view  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour  by  which 
a  direct  personal  relation  was  established  between  men 
and  the  living  Jesus  conceived  as  a  light  and  a  spiritual 
power.  It  was  the  weakness  of  Paulinism  that  its  founder, 
knowing  nothing  of  a  Christ  "  according  to  the  flesh"  and 
apparently  indifferent  to  such  a  knowledge,  lost  sight  of 
the  supreme  greatness  and  splendor  of  the  personal  life 
and  example  of  Jesus,  and  fixed  the  attention  of  men 
upon  his  death  and  resurrection  as  the  chief  if  not  the 
sole  events  in  his  career  significant  for  the  work  of  salva- 
tion. If  it  must  be  conceded  that  this  conception  of  the 
mission  of  Christ  regarded  literally  and  abstractly  has  ex- 
erted a  far-reaching  deleterious  influence  upon  Christian 
thought  and  life,  the  importance  of  the  Johannine  teach- 
ing of  the  vast  significance  and  exalted  grandeur  of  the 
personality  of  the  living  Christ  as  the  supreme  and  imme- 
diate object  of  faith  and  adoring  love  becomes  apparent. 
With  all  its  mysticism  and  its  metaphysical  Logos-spec- 
ulation, it  presents  a  view  of  the  personality  of  Christ  and 
of  his  direct  relation  to  men  which  meets  the  needs  of 
practical  life,  and  corrects  the  Pauline  interpretation  in 


THE  JOHANN1NE    TRANSFORMATION.  311 

the  interest  of  establishing  the  empire   of  Christianity  as 
a  world-religion. 

A  marked  peculiarity  of  the  Johannine  teaching  is  the! 
doctrine  of  the  continuation  of  the  work  of  Christ  after 
his  departure  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  almost  complete 
identification  of  Christ  with  God  is  indicated  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  is  made  to  speak  of  the  bestowal  of  the 
Spirit.  Now  it  is  the  Father  who  will  give  the  Paraclete 
that  is,  the  Advocate,  or  Helper,  by  reason  of  the  prayer 
of  Christ,  or  who  will  send  him  in  Christ's  name,  and 
again  it  is  Christ  himself  who  will  send  him.*  The  coming 
of  the  Paraclete  is  said  to  be  conditioned  on  Christ's  go- 
ing away :  "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  depart ;  for  if  I 
do  not  depart  the  Paraclete  will  not  come  to  you."  Again 
it  is  said :  "  For  the  Spirit  was  not  yet,  because  Jesus  was 
not  yet  glorified. "f  The  presence  in  believers,  and  not 
the  existence  of  the  Spirit,  is  evidently  referred  to  in  this 
last  passage.  The  existence  of  the  Spirit  is  implied  in 
the  existence  of  God,  since  it  is  said  to  "  proceed  from  the 
Father,"  and  already  to  have  been  given  to  Christ  "  with- 
out measure,"  wherefore  the  latter  "  speaks  the  words  of 
God."  \  The  Spirit  appears  to  be  regarded  by  the  writer 
as  shut  up  in  God  and  Christ  previously  to  the  latter's 
departure  from  the  earth,  and  to  be  conceived  as  thence- 
forward a  personality  in  the  character  of  the  Paraclete. 
Personality  is  unequivocally  predicated  of  him  in  several 
passages.  He  is  placed  beside  Christ  as  "another  Para- 
clete " — words  by  which  it  appears  to  be  implied  that  by 
reason  of  the  indwelling  in  him  of  the  Spirit,  Christ  while 
on  earth  performs  for  his  disciples  in  some  sense  the 
functions  of  the  Paraclete,  since  he  is  not  in  the  Gospel 

*  John  xiv.,  6,  26,  xv.  26,  xvi,  7. 

f  John  vii.  39,  xvi.  7.  \  John  iii.  34. 


312    "  THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

distinctively  called  the  Paraclete.  Again  it  is  said  of  him 
that  he  "  will  bear  witness"  of  Christ  ;  that  he  will  "come" 
to  the  disciples,  will  be  sent,  and  will  be  not  merely  in 
but  with  them  ;  he  will  not  speak  from  himself,  but  what- 
ever he  hears,  that  he  will  speak — words  which  imply  his 
dependence  on  and  subordination  to  God,  just  as  Jesus 
was  not  able  to  do  anything  of  himself.  His  subordina- 
tion to  Christ  is  implied  in  the  words  :  "  He  will  glorify 
me,  for  he  will  receive  of  what  is  mine,  and  will  tell  it  to 
you."*  He  will  bring  to  the  remembrance  of  the  disciples 
what  Christ  has  already  taught  them.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded, however,  that  there  are  other  sayings  concerning 
the  Spirit  in  which  his  personality  as  distinct  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  not  implied.  Christ  is  made  to 
speak  of  his  own  personal  coming  and  that  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  same  breath,  as  if  the  two  manifestations  were  iden- 
ticalf ;  and  after  his  resurrection  he  is  said  to  have  im- 
parted the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  disciples  by  breathing  upon 
them.J  But  it  is  evident  that  if  there  are  three  personal- 
ities in  the  Johannine  divine  triad,  they  are  not  conceived 
as  equal  and  together  constituting  the  divine  Being, 
"  three  in  one  and  one  in  three."  Rather  there  is  a  three- 
fold gradation.  Under  the  Father  is  the  Son,  and  sub- 
ordinate to  the  Son  and  representing  him  upon  the  earth 
as  the  "  Spirit  of  truth  "  is  the  Paraclete.  The  Johannine 
thought  is  strictly  monotheistic,  and  recognizes  the  Father 
as  "  the  only  true  God."  If  the  Logos  is  God,  it  is  in  the 
sense  of  absolute  dependence  on  the  Father,  of  subordi- 
nation to  His  will,  and  of  inability  to  do  anything  of  him- 
self. If  the  Paraclete  is  a  personality,  it  is  in  a  sense 
rather  related  to  Montanism  and  the  beginnings  of  the 

*John  xvi.  14. 

f  John  xiv.  16-19,  xvi-  13-16.  \  John  xvi.    14. 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  313 

development  of  Trinitarianism  than  to  the  later  doctrine 
of  the  "  triune  God." 

In  its  eschatology  the  Johannine  transformation  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  maintains  the  "  spiritual  "  character  which 
has  been  from  an  early  time  attributed  to  its  record.  In 
accordance  with  its  doctrine  of  the  exalted  rank  of  Christ, 
he  is  made  to  speak  of  his  kingdom,*  while  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  retired  into  the  background.  This  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  also  said  not  to  be  "  of  this  world,"  and  there  is 
no  trace  of  the  Pauline  idea  of  a  renovated  earth,  the  groan- 
ing creation  liberated  from  its  bondage  in  the  Messianic 
age  to  come,  or  of  the  terrestrial  glorious  throne  of  the  Son 
of  Man  spoken  of  in  the  first  Gospel.f  In  this  conception 
of  the  future  the  Jewish-Messianic  features  of  the  early 
tradition  and  the  synoptic  apocalyptic  find  no  place. 
"  Travail-pains  "  announcing  the  approaching  birth  of  a 
new  age,  wars,  natural  convulsions,  and  Palestinian  "  tribu- 
lations," have  no  part  in  the  great  Johannine  economy  of 
an  inward  spiritual  development.  Here  there  is  no 
"  abomination  of  desolation,"  no  "  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  heaven,"  no  shaking  of  the  celestial  "  powers,"  no  com- 
ing of  the  awful  Judge  in  the  clouds  "  with  great  power 
and  glory,"  and  no  gathering  of  the  affrighted  "  nations  " 
before  his  earthly  throne.  The  future  is,  indeed,  full  of 
promise,  but  the  theatre  of  its  blessedness  is  not  to  be  a 
"  new  earth  "  arched  with  "  new  heavens."  The  divine 
spiritual  order  of  the  Christian  life  is  to  continue  with  the 
inspiring  Paraclete  present  forever.  Christ  will  come, 
not  with  "the  sound  of  a  trump"  or  "the  voice  of  an 
archangel,"  but  in  the  silent  power  of  his  spirit,  and  even 
the  Father  too  will  with  him  make  His  abode  in  the  souls 
of  the  believers.  Accordingly,  the  sharp  distinction 

*  John  xviii.  36.  f  Matt.  xxv.  30. 


3H       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

between  "  the  present  age  "  and  "  the  age  to  come  "  fades 
away  in  the  conception  of  a  continuous  spiritual  economy. 
Here,  then,  there  is  no  scenic  judgment  at  "the  end  of 
the  age."  Those  who  believe  do  not  come  into  judgment, 
and  Christ  came  not  as  a  judge.  The  word  which  he  has 
spoken  carries  on  perpetually  the  inevitable  separation 
between  the  children  of  darkness  and  the  children  of  light. 
Satan  is  not  bound  with  chains  and  flung  into  apocalyptic 
flames,  but  irresistible  spiritual  forces  begin  with  the 
earthly  mission  of  the  all-powerful  Logos  to  work  his 
overthrow  as  prince  of  this  world  and  to  conquer  his  king- 
dom of  darkness. 

That  such  is  the  predominant  idea  of  the  Johannine 
doctrine  of  the  future  is  manifest  to  the  careful  reader  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  In  accordance  with  it  is  the  fact  of  the 
absence  of  details  regarding  the  second  coming  of  Christ 
and  of  a  definite  statement  of  its  time.  The  synoptists 
represent  Jesus  to  have  announced  it  as  impending,  as  to 
take  place,  indeed,  in  his  own  generation  before  the 
apostles  should  have  preached  in  all  "  the  cities  of  Israel." 
Paul  expected  that  he  himself  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
would  survive  it.  But  in  the  Johannine  thought  the  time- 
determination  appears  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  conception 
of  an  indefinite,  endless  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  and 
the  Paraclete  in  the  souls  of  believers.  Yet  the  careful 
reader  will  find  difficulty  in  reconciling  with  this  vagueness 
about  the  second  coming,  with  this  evident  design  to 
spiritualize  it,  and  with  the  teaching  which  reduces  the 
judgment  to  the  attitude  which  men  may  take,  by  a  sort 
of  gravitation  according  to  their  natures,  toward  the 
"  word  "  of  Christ,  certain  expressions  bordering  on  the 
synoptic  and  Pauline  apocalyptic.  Such  are  the  words 
concerning  the  raising  up  of  believers  "  at  the  last  day  " 


THE  JOHANNINE    TRANSFORMATION.  315 

and  the  solemn  announcement  that  the  hour  is  coming  in 
which  all  who  are  in  the  tombs  will  hear  the  voice  of 
Christ,  and  will  come  forth,  "  they  who  have  done  good 
to  a  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  who  have  done  evil  to 
a  resurrection  of  condemnation."  *  So  deep-rooted,  how- 
ever, in  the  Christian  thought  of  the  second  century  was 
the  idea  of  an  apocalyptic  second  coming  of  Christ  to 
judgment,  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  it  should  find  inci- 
dental expression  in  a  writing  whose  author  appears  in 
general  to  have  left  all  such  conceptions  far  behind  him, 
and  to  have  subordinated  all  externality  in  his  apprehen- 
sion of  Christianity  to  a  predominant  spirituality  and 
immanence.  According  to  the  prevailing  point  of  view  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  the  "  condemnation  "  of  the  unbeliever 
is  not  pronounced  by  an  external  act  of  judgment.  He 
"  is  judged  already  "  because  of  his  unbelief.  No  last-day 
assize,  no  arraignment  "on  the  left  hand,"  no  formal  con- 
signment to  "  everlasting  punishment  "  finds  a  place  in  the 
Hellenistic  thought  of  this  writer.  In  accordance  with 
this  "  spiritual "  conception  he  makes  no  mention,  even 
gives  no  intimation  of  a  hades,  a  gehenna,  an  intermediate 
state.  Rather  he  appears  to  think  with  Philo  that  "  the 
place  of  the  impious  is  not  that  which  is  fabled  to  be  in 
hades,  for  the  true  hades  is  the  life  of  the  wicked  man, 
exposed  to  vengeance,with  uncleansed  guilt,  obnoxious  to 
every  curse."  On  the  unbeliever,  in  fact,  abides  the  wrath 
of  God.  Tormented  by  an  evil  conscience,  he  remains  in 
darkness,  and  comes  not  to  the  reproving  light.  He  who 
abides  not  in  Christ  "  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch  and  is 
withered  ;  and  men  gather  it  and  cast  it  into  the  fire,  and 
it  is  burned."  f  If  no  intermediate  state  finds  a  place  in 

*  John  vi.  39,  40,  44,  54,  v.  28,  29. 
\  John  xv.  6. 


THE    GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

this  system  of  thought  ;  if  there  is  no  activity  in  the 
grave  ;  if  death  is  the  night  "  wherein  no  man  can  work  "; 
what  is  conceived  to  be  the  fortune  of  those  who  "  die  in 
their  sins "  ?  This  problem  appears  to  be  left  without 
definite  solution.  It  is  repeatedly  said  that  believers  will 
be  raised  up  "  at  the  last  day,"  i.  e.,  at  the  second  coming 
of  Christ,  as  if  there  were  no  resurrection  for  any  others, 
and  unbelievers  perished  at  death,  in  accordance  with  the 
doctrine  which  finds  frequent  expression  that  belief  and 
life,  unbelief  and  death,  are  inseparably  connected.  In 
the  absence  of  a  doctrine  of  the  underworld  the  dead  ap- 
pear to  be  conceived  of  as  unconscious  "  in  the  graves," 
and  when  once  only  there  is  mention  of  a  resurrection  of 
"  those  who  have  done  evil "  it  is  to  "  a  resurrection  of 
condemnation  "  that  they  come  forth.  On  the  whole,  the 
writer  appears  to  see  little  hope  for  those  who  remain  in 
the  darkness  of  unbelief  until  they  "  die  in  their  sins,"  and 
there  is  a  remarkable  absence  in  the  Gospel  of  interest  in 
the  destiny  of  those  obstinate  persons  who  remained 
insensible  to  the  light  of  the  great  Logos,  and  whose 
opposition  to  him  culminated  in  the  detested  children  of 
the  Devil,  the  Jews.  Whether  the  overthrow  of  the  prince 
of  this  world  is  conceived  as  the  entire  abolition  of  sin 
from  the  universe,  and  whether  the  optimistic  declaration 
that  Christ  will  draw  all  men  unto  him  is  intended  in  the 
absolute  sense  of  a  saving  influence  upon  unbelievers  in 
the  life  to  come,  there  are  no  data  for  determining.  Ques- 
tions of  destiny  were  evidently  not  the  chief  concern  of 
the  writer  of  this  Gospel.  Only  as  to  the  destiny  of  the 
apostles  does  he  speak  with  precision.  They  were  not  to 
sleep  the  sleep  of  death,  but  Christ  having  prepared  a 
place  for  them  would  come  and  receive  them  to  himself 
in  the  Father's  house  of  many  mansions — a  saying  which 


THE  JO  HA  NNINE    TRA  NSFORMA  TION.  3 1  / 

reminds  us  of  Paul's  personal  longing  to  be  absent  from 
the  body  and  present  with  the  Lord  without  passing 
through  the  gloomy  realm  of  hades.* 

*  On  the  Johannine  doctrine  see  :  the  Commentaries  of  Meyer,  De  Wette, 
Tholuck,  Ewald,  Lange,  and  Holtzmann's  Hand-Commentar  ;  the  Introduc- 
tions of  Davidson,  Weiss,  Holtzmann,  Hilgenfeld,  Westcott,  and  Salmon  ; 
the  works  on  Biblical  Theology  by  Immer,  Weiss,  Baur,  and  Von  Colin  ; 
Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu,  i.  pp.  103-172  ;  Thoma.  Die  Genesis  des  Johannes- 
Evangel,  pp.  177-302  ;  Weizsacker,  Apostol.  Zeitalter  2te  Ausg.  pp. 
53I-558  ;  Hausrath,  Neutest.  Zeitgesch.,  iii.  pp.  559  ff. ;  Pfleiderer,  Das 
Urchristenthum,  pp.  695-786;  Tayler,  The  Fourth  Gospel,  etc.;  Wendt, 
Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  passim  ;  Lechler,  Apostol.  u.  nachapostol.  Zeitalter, 
2te  Ausg.  pp.  455-475  ;  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  Bk.  iii.  Chap.  ii.  § 
4,  Chap.  iii.  §  3  ;  Matthew  Arnold,  God  and  the  Bible,  pp.  196-244 ; 
Hilgenfeld,  Das  Evangel,  u.  die  Briefe  Johannis  ;  Beyschlag,  Neutest. 
Theol.,  ii.  pp.  462  ff  ;  Oscar  Holtzmann,  Das  Johannesevangelium,  pp. 
48-92. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS. 

TJELLENISTIC  speculation  exerted,  as  everybody 
1  1  concedes,  a  very  considerable  influence  upon  the 
early  development  of  Christian  theology.  The  historical 
critic  of  the  New  Testament,  who  takes  account  of  facts 
without  regard  to  their  bearing  upon  dogma,  cannot,  how- 
ever, accept  the  conclusion  of  Harnack's  construction  of 
the  history  of  doctrines,  that  Hellenism  "  suddenly " 
invaded  the  Church,  and  attempted  to  take  possession  of 
its  theology.  Rather  he  finds  that  its  ideas  gradually 
entered  into  the  Christian  consciousness,  exerted  a  growing 
influence,  and  were  subject  to  a  varied  development  accord- 
ing to  the  different  points  of  view  from  which  they  were 
regarded  ;  that  Paul,  the  real  founder  of  Christian  theology, 
did  not  write  without  reference  to  them  ;  that  they  are 
distinctively  prominent  in  the  deutero-Pauline  Epistles; 
that  the  Johannine  teaching  holds  them  in  a  solution  of 
its  own — in  a  word,  that  the  real  beginnings  of  the  history 
of  doctrines  are  not  to  be  found  altogether  in  the  unca- 
nonical  early  literature  of  the  Church,  but  in  its  canonical 
writings  as  well.  .The  view  of  the  development  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  of  which  Pfleiderer  has  made  a  masterly 
elucidation  *  finds  that  Hellenism  was  not  suddenly 

*  It  is  gratifying  to  note  that  this  scholar  is  supported  to  a  considerable 
degree  in  this  view  by  so  able  and  cautious  a  thinker  as  Weizsacker.  See  the 
latter's  Apostolisches  Zeitalter,  2te  Ausg,  1890. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  319 

bestowed  by  the  Gnostics  upon  a  Christianity  hitherto 
innocent  of  it, but  rather  that  gnosticism  was  itself  a  natural 
product  of  the  preceding  evolution  of  Christianity.  The 
Pauline  and  deutero-Pauline  Epistles  and  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel are  not,  indeed,  Gnostic  writings ;  but  the  idealization 
of  Christ,  the  speculative  tendencies,  the  spiritualization 
of  Christianity,  and  the  mysticism  contained  severally  in 
one  and  the  other  of  them,  are  so  related  to  Gnosticism  as 
to  furnish  an  impulse  toward  it,  to  say  the  least.  Far 
from  seeking  to  belittle  or  overthrow  Christianity,  the 
Gnostics  in  endeavoring  to  exalt  the  religion  of  Jesus  above 
Judaism  sought  the  same  end  that  the  orthodox  Christians 
were  striving  to  achieve.  Their  method  was  peculiar,  and 
their  speculations  were  more  comprehensive  and  daring 
than  those  of  the  Christian  writers  with  whom  they  had 
the  closest  affinity.  The  heterogeneous  and  fantastic 
ideas  which  were  distinctive  features  of  their  systems 
would  no  doubt,  had  they  prevailed,  have  been  more  harm- 
ful to  Christianity  than  the  Christian  mythology  and 
apocalyptic  have  been.  But  their  purpose  was  noble, 
and  their  mistake  was  the  mistake  of  most  theolo- 
gians of  the  Church  since  their  time,  that  they  were  too 
much  given  to  speculation  concerning  matters  which  they 
knew  and  could  know  nothing  about.  Gathering  their 
materials  from  the  oriental  cults,  the  Grecian  philosophy, 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Christian  Gospels,  founding 
upon  an  original  opposition  of  matter  and  spirit,  and 
imagining  that  the  supreme  God,  the  most  spiritual 
essence,  could  not  come  into  immediate  relation  with 
material  things  and  with  evil,  they  assumed  a  Demiurge 
or  world-builder  whom  they  identified  with  the  God  of  the 
Jews  and  the  Author  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and  subordi- 
nated to  the  God  of  Christianity.  As  the  Demiurge  was 


320       THE    GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  mediating  agent  in  creation,  so  Christ,  a  cosmic  prin- 
ciple, an  aeon  or  emanation,  was  conceived  as  the  mediat- 
ing agent  in  the  establishment  in  the  world-order  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  spiritual  forces  over  the  sensuous.  The 
heavenly  Christ  was  supposed  by  some  to  have  descended 
into  the  earthly  Jesus,  while  others  held  the  Docetic  view 
that  the  incarnation  was  only  apparent,  and  that  as  a 
spiritual  Saviour  Christ  could  not  have  inhabited  a  real 
material  body.  It  accorded  with  this  speculative  tendency 
that  salvation  was  thought  to  consist  chiefly  in  right 
knowledge,  while  the  most  contradictory  practical  results 
of  the  system  appeared  in  ascetic  practices  on  the  one 
hand  for  the  suppression  of  the  sensuous  nature,  and  on 
the  other  in  libertinism  and  indifference  to  the  distinction 
of  right  and  wrong.  The  orthodox  Christians  were  quick 
to  see  that  these  tendencies  would,  if  left  to  take  their 
course,  result  in  the  dissolution  of  the  Church  into  numer- 
ous sects  of  philosophers  and  mystics,  and  they  set  them- 
selves energetically  to  oppose  them.  The  New-Testament 
writings  which  contain  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  the 
anti-Gnostic  interpretation  of  Christianity  are  the  Epistles 
written  in  the  name  of  John,  the  pastoral  Epistles  ascribed 
to  Paul,  Jude,  and  2  Peter.  That  these  were  written  at  a 
time  in  the  second  century  when  Gnostic  ideas  were  cur- 
rent is  a  conclusion  of  criticism  which  a  careful  study  of 
them  tends  to  confirm. 

1. THE  FIRST  EPISTLE    OF    JOHN. 

The  so-called  first  Epistle  of  John,  which  is  rather  a 
homily  than  an  Epistle,  is  pervaded  by  a  warning  against 
certain  false  teachers  and  their  doctrines,  and  its  distinc- 
tive purpose  is  declared  in  the  words :  "  These  things  I 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  321 

have  written  to  you  concerning  those  who  seduce  you."* 
These  false  teachers  appear  to  have  gone  out  of  the 
Church  into  the  world  where  they  found  favor  with 
those  who  were  "  of  the  world,"  and  claimed  to  have  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  to  dwell  in  Him  and  in  the  "light" 
as  illuminati  of  a  high  order.  In  their  pride  of  knowledge 
they  appear  to  have  been  deficient  in  "  brotherly  love," 
and  to  have  assumed  a  moral  perfection  which  made 
them  indifferent  to  the  doctrine  of  redemption  and  atone- 
ment. "  Antichrists "  and  "  liars,"  they  denied  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  came  in 
the  flesh — doctrines  in  which  have  been  recognized  the 
Ebionite  heresy  and  the  Docetic  Gnosis.f  The  heretical 
teaching  that  light  and  darkness  were  originally  mingled 
in  the  divine  Being  appears  to  be  combated  in  the  dec- 
laration that  "  God  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  darkness 
at  all";  and  against  the  Gnostic  assertion  that  the  higher, 
spiritual  Christ  was  incapable  of  suffering,  the  atoning 
significance  of  his  blood  is  emphatically  maintained.^ 
In  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  doctrine  that  Christ  the  Son 
of  God  descended  into  Jesus  at  the  baptism,  but  aban- 
doned him  before  the  passion,  it  is  asserted  that  Christ 
came  "  not  in  the  water  only,  but  in  the  water  and  in 
the  blood,"  so  that  the  witnesses  agreeing  in  one  are  the 
water  of  baptism,  the  blood  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
the  Spirit. §  The  moral  qualities  which  are  ascribed  to 
the  false  teachers  make  them  recognizable  as  the  Gnos- 
tics whose  theories  of  life  and  conduct  are  described  in 
the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church  who  combated 

*  I  John  ii.  26. 

f  i  John  i.  6,  ii.  4,  6,  9,  22,  iv.  2  f.,  15,  v.  1,5;  2  John  7. 

\  i  John  i.  5,  7,ii.  2,  iii.  5,  iv.  10. 

§  i  John  v.  6-8 . 


322        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

them  ;*  and  these  in  connection  with  their  teachings 
render  it  extremely  doubtful  that  Wittichen,  Keim,  and 
Haupt  are  correct  in  the  opinion  that  the  heresies  in 
question  were  those  of  the  Ebionites,  or  of  Corinth.  On 
the  contrary,  antinomistic  or  libertine  Gnostics  are  evi- 
dently the  objects  of  the  writer's  denunciations. 

In  his  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  point  of  view  the 
writer  himself  does  not,  however,  wholly  depart  from 
it  in  his  terminology  at  least.  The  highest  knowledge 
of  God  belongs  to  the  true  Christians  who  have  the 
"anointing  from  the  Holy  One,  and  know  all  things."  This 
"anointing"  is  "  a  truth,  and  is  not  a  lie,"  as  is  the  teach- 
ing of  the  antichrists.  They  "  know  the  Spirit  of  God," 
because  they  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  came  "  in 
the  flesh. "f  This  is  the  true  "  Gnosis."  An  expression 
borrowed  from  the  Gnostic  schools  is  employed  to  desig- 
nate the  spirit  from  which  proceeds  this  true  knowledge. 
This  is  the  divine  "  seed  "J  which  dwells  in  him  who  has 
been  born  of  God.  He  cannot  sin,  because  His  (God's) 
seed  remaineth  in  him,  that  is  the  divine  Spirit  abides 
germinally  in  his  soul  in  order  to  come  to  development, 
according  to  the  Valentinian  Gnosis  as  explained  by  Ire- 
naeus.§  The  writer,  then,  does  not  appear  to  reject  Gnosis 
in  itself,  but  only  the  current  heretical  apprehensions  of 
it.  He  lays  stress  on  the  knowledge  of  God,  Christ,  and 
the  truth,  in  accordance  with  the  Johannine  theology. 
But  the  true  Gnosis  is  not  regarded  by  him,  as  it  was  by 
the  Gnostics  proper,  as  opposed  to  Christian  faith  ;  rather 
it  is  identical  with  it.  If  they  claimed  to  be  men  of  the 

*  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  4,  31  ;  Iren.  Adv.  haer.  i.  6,  2  ;  Ign.  Ad.  Smyr. 
vi.;  cf.  Clem.  Recog.  ii.  22  ;  Epiph.  Haer.  xxxviii.  i. 

f  i  John  ii.  20,  27,  iv.   2.  \  6rtipua. 

§  Adv.  haer.  i.  6,  4  ;  cf.  Tertul.  De  anima,  xi. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS.  323 

Spirit  who  were  born  of  God,  and  to  have  left  behind 
them  as  "  pneumatics  "  the  merely  "  psychical  "  believers 
of  the  Church,  he  claims  that  the  believers  in  Christ  are 
they  who  are  truly  born  of  God,  who  have  received  the 
anointing  of  the  Spirit,  possess  the  true  knowledge,  or 
Gnosis,  and  have  no  need  that  any  one  should  teach 
them.  The  dualism  of  the  Epistle,  which  has  an  affinity 
with  Gnosticism,  recalls  the  views  expressed  in  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Here  as  there  we  have  on  the  one  hand  the 
children  of  God,  and  on  the  other  the  Devil  and  his 
children.  In  opposition  to  the  antinomistic  libertinism 
of  the  antichrists  and  their  followers,  the  writer  empha- 
sizes with  great  force  and  frequent  repetition  the  impor- 
tance of  right  conduct  and  fraternal  love.  In  him  who 
keeps  the  word  of  Christ  is  the  love  of  God  perfected, 
and  he  who  abides  in  him  ought  to  walk  as  he  walked.* 
The  true  fellowship  with  God  does  not,  however,  as  the 
Gnostics  taught,  consist  in  knowledge,  but  in  a  loving 
disposition  toward  God  and  the  brethren,  together  with 
faith  in  Christ.  Love  is  the  evidence  that  we  have 
passed  out  of  death  into  life,  but  the  love  which  is  em- 
phasized is  not  that  of  mankind  in  general.  The  evidence 
that  one  has  passed  out  of  death  into  life  is  that  one 
loves  "  the  brethren,  "  and  for  these  one  ought  even  to 
lay  down  one's  life.  "  Every  one  that  loveth  Him  that 
begot,  loveth  also  him  that  hath  been  begotten  of  Him," 
that  is,  the  Christian.  "  By  this  we  know  that  we  love 
the  children  of  God,  when  we  love  God,  and  do  His  com- 
mandments.'^ Faith  is  rather  subordinated  to  love  than 
accorded  the  first  place  as  a  factor  in  the  Christian  life, 
and  is  regarded  as  the  result  and  manifestation  of  the 

*  i  John  ii.  5,  6,  29,  iii.  9,  10,  n. 
f  I  John  iii.  14,  16,  17,  v.  i,  2. 


324       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

birth  from  God  rather  than  as  the  cause  of  this  spiritual 
state.  He  who  has  faith  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  has 
been  born  of  God.  This  emphasizing  of  the  practical  side 
of  the  Christian  life  in  the  exaltation  of  love  for  one  an- 
other, in  which  evidence  is  given  of  the  indwelling  of 
God  and  the  perfecting  of  His  love  in  the  heart,*  to- 
gether with  a  mysticism  similar  to  that  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  furnished  a  supplementing  of  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith,  which  was  required  by  the  moral 
consciousness.  The  difficulties  which  the  ethical  judg- 
ment could  not  but  find  in  the  extreme  statement  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  are  removed  by  this  fine  mysticism, 
which  finds  expression  in  words  which  have  been  called 
the  greatest  and  most  beautiful  that  have  ever  been 
spoken  concerning  religion :  "  God  is  love,  and  he  who 
abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God  and  God  in  him  ;  Love  is 
of  God,  and  every  one  who  hath  love  is  born  of  God  and 
knoweth  Him  ;  Whatever  is  born  of  God  overcometh  the 
world,  and  this  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the  world, 
even  our  faith.  This  is  love  to  God,  that  we  keep  His  com- 
mandments and  His  commandments  are  not  burdensome  ; 
Hereby  we  know  that  we  dwell  in  Him  and  He  in  us, 
because  He  hath  given  us  of  His  Spirit." 

That  the  expression  of  the  noblest  religious  truths  and 
sentiments  is  not,  however,  incompatible  in  a  New-Testa- 
ment writer  with  susceptibility  regarding  doctrinal  tenets 
to  the  influences  of  his  environment,  is  evident  in  the 
modifications  which  this  author  made  of  the  principles  of 
the  Johannine  school  to  which  he  doubtless  belonged. 
In  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  view  that  the  Jesus  of  his- 
tory consisted  of  the  man  Jesus  and  the  divine,  heavenly 
Christ  he  sets  up  the  doctrine  that  the  divine  life  mani- 

*  I  John  iv.   12,  13. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS.  $2$ 

fested  itself  in  Jesus  who  as  man  was  at  the  same  time 
the  Son  of  God,  and  avoids  the  original  Johannine  teach- 
ing of  the  fourth  Gospel  that  Christ  was  the  personal 
Logos  distinct  from  God.  Instead  of  "  the  Logos  who 
was  with  God,  and  was  God,"  he  speaks  of  "  the  everlast- 
ing life  which  was  with  the  Father."  *  Holtzmann, 
approved  by  Pfleiderer,  remarks  that  by  an  elimination 
of  the  intervening  Logos-conception  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
such  a  degree  of  unity  between  God  and  Christ  is  posited 
that  in  a  large  number  of  cases  it  is  impossible  to  decide 
whether  God  or  Christ  is  the  subject.  The  point  of  view 
of  the  writer  is  evidently  that  of  the  Monarchianism  of 
the  second  century  rather  than  Trinitarianism.  It  would 
appear  to  be  in  the  interest  of  a  strict  monotheism  that 
he  also  avoids  the  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  employs  instead  of  formulas 
which  recognize  it  the  expressions :  "  An  anointing  from 
the  Holy  One  "  and  "  Spirit  of  God,"  as  in  the  passage  : 
4<  Hereby  we  know  that  we  dwell  in  Him  and  He  in  us, 
because  He  hath  given  us  of  His  Spirit."  f  The  Paraclete 
as  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  not  recognized. 
"  The  reason  why  the  writer  adheres  to  the  Monarchi- 
anistic  thought  of  the  Church  of  the  second  century 
was  doubtless  the  fear  that  by  making  the  Logos  and 
the  Spirit  distinct  personalities  he  might  come  too  near 
the  Gnostic-mythological  doctrine  of  the  divine  mediate 
beings  or  aeons,  and  slip  from  the  solid  ground  of  mono- 
theism." :£  This  modification  of  the  original  Johannine 
thought  is  evidently  due  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Gnostic 
controversy,  but  it  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of 
religion.  In  fact,  whether  intentionally  or  no  may  be 

*  John  i.  2. 

f  i  John  ii.  20,  iv.  13.  \  Pfleiderer. 


326       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

left  undecided,  the  writer  establishes  an  immediate  rela- 
tion of  the  soul  to  God,  which  Christian  theologians  since 
Paul  have  unhappily  disregarded,  apparently  solicitous 
lest  the  person  of  Christ  should  not  be  sufficiently  exalted, 
and  his  mediatorial  office  magnified.  A  distinctive  feature 
of  the  Epistle,  which  is  not  found  in  the  fourth  Gospelr 
is  the  doctrine  that  Christ  is  "  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins."  *  This  conception  is  rather  akin  to  the  idea  of  the 
office  of  Christ  as  high-priest  which  is  represented  in 
Hebrews  than,  as  Pfleiderer  thinks,  to  the  doctrine  in  the 
Gospel  of  the  moral  purification  which  Christ  effects  in 
the  "  taking  away  "  of  sin.  Another  deviation  from  the 
Johannine  teaching  of  the  Gospel  is  presented  in  the 
eschatology  of  the  Epistle.  In  opposition  to  the  pre- 
dominantly spiritual  apprehension  of  the  second  coming 
of  Christ,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  represented  in  the 
Gospel,  the  Epistle  speaks  of  the  time  "  when  he  shall 
appear  "  as  near  at  hand,  especially  on  account  of  "anti- 
christ "  who  appears  to  have  been  expected  by  the  readers 
of  the  author  before  the  Parousia.  The  certainty  that 
"  the  last  time  is  come  "  appears  to  be  intensified  by  the 
fact  that  already  "  there  are  even  now  many  antichrists."  f 
It  is  difficult  to  see  reasons  for  regarding  this  with  Pflei- 
derer as  denoting  only  a  "  relative  difference "  in  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Epistle  from  that  of  the  GospeL 
Again,  the  doctrine  that  the  believers  had  in  Christ  an 
"  advocate  [Paraclete]  with  the  Father,"  \  is  entirely 
foreign  to  the  Gospel.  There  is,  indeed,  in  the  Gospel  an 
implication  that  Christ  is  a  Paraclete  in  the  words,  "  I 
will  send  you  another  Paraclete,"  but  the  Paraclete  of 
the  Gospel  is  conceived  as  present  with  the  believers  and 

*  £A.atf//o?,  i  John  ii.  2,  iv.  10,  and  not  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament, 
f  i  John  ii.  18,  28.  \  i  John  ii.  i. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS.  327 

not  as  "with  the  Father"  in  the  character  of  an  inter- 
cessor,  "  if  any  one  have  sinned."  The  thought  of  the 
passage  in  question  is  evidently  analogous  to  that  con- 
veyed in  the  mention  of  the  intercession  of  Christ  in 
earlier  writings  of  the  New  Testament.* 

2. — THE    PASTORAL     EPISTLES. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles,  I  and  2  Timothy  and  Titus,  do 
not  contain  an  independent  and  original  type  of  doctrine. 
Their  general  point  of  view  is  Pauline,  f  but  the  writer  in 
applying  the  teachings  of  his  master  to  the  conditions  of 
the  second  century  has  modified  them  in  many  particulars, 
and  furnished  a  weakened  Paulinism  in  which  some  of  the 
great  distinctive  features  of  the  apostle's  thought  are  want- 
ing. That  he  had  the  heresies  of  the  Gnostics  before  him 
was  recognized  by  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  and  is  hardly 
mistakable  from  many  passages  in  the  Epistles.  The 
condemnation  of  "  the  oppositions  of  the  falsely-called 
knowledge,"  \  or  the  antithesis  of  the  Gnosis  falsely  so- 
called,  finds  its  most  probable  explanation  in  a  reference 
to  the  celebrated  Gnostic  Antitheses  of  Marcion.  A 
Gnostic  asceticism  appears  to  be  combated  in  the  reference, 
to  the  "  speakers  of  lies  "  who  forbid  to  marry,  and  com- 
mand to  abstain  from  food.  §  The  teaching  which  is  here 
opposed  seems  to  have  proceeded  from  the  dualistic  point 
of  view  of  Gnosticism  according  to  which  the  Demiurge, 
and  not  the  good  God,  was  the  creator  of  matter.  Gnostic 
"vain  babbling"  and  allegorizing  interpretations  of  the 
law  put  forth  by  those  who  desire  to  be  teachers  of  the 
law,  but  who  understand  neither  what  they  say  nor 

*  See  Rom.  viii.  34  ;  Heb.  vii.  25,  ix.  24. 

f  i  Tim.  ii.  7  ;  2  Tim.  i.  9,  II,  15,  iv.  17  ;  Tit.  iii.  4. 

J  i  Tim.  vi.  20.  §  i  Tim.  iv.  2,  3. 


328        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

whereof  they  affirm,  appear  to  be  referred  to  in  the  decla- 
ration that  "  the  law  is  good  if  a  man  use  it  lawfully,"  in 
which  the  practical  moral  fulfilment  of  the  law  is  placed 
in  opposition  to  Gnostic  theories  and  speculations  about 
it,  or  perhaps  to  the  denial  by  certain  false  teachers  of  all 
moral  value  to  it.  But  the  absence  of  the  characteristic 
Pauline  doctrine  regarding  the  law  and  justification  is  re- 
markable as  showing  the  writer's  attitude  toward  the  burn- 
ing questions  of  the  time  of  the  apostle.*  The  attitude 
of  the  Epistles  toward  the  Old  Testament  favors  the  ex- 
treme doctrine  of  its  inspiration,  and  is  doubtless  due  to 
the  Gnostic  depreciation  of  it  and  to  the  exigencies  of  a 
time  when  the  Church  felt  the  need  of  the  Scriptures  as 
an  objective  rule  of  faith  and  life  in  the  conflict  with 
heresy.  Accordingly,  the  writer  admonishes  Timothy  to 
continue  in  the  things  which  he  had  learned,  knowing  from 
what  teachers  he  had  learned  them,  and  that  from  a  child 
he  had  known  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  are  able  to  make 
him  wise  unto  salvation,  and  then  adds  the  declaration 
which,  on  the  presumption  of  its  divine  authority,  has  been 
made  the  basis  of  the  extreme  doctrine  of  inspiration : 
"  Every  Scripture  is  inspired  by  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  discipline  in 
righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,"  etc.  f 
The  passage  presents  no  difficulty  to  the  student  whose 
point  of  view  enables  him  to  see  in  it  the  beginning  of  a 

*  Schleiermacher,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  real  founder  of  the  criti- 
cism of  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  misses  here  with  clear  insight  the  mas- 
ter's hand.  Werke  zur  Theologie,  ii.  p.  286. 

f  2  Tim.  iii.  15-17.  The  translation  given  in  the  text  is  that  of  Noyes 
with  the  exception  of  his  probably  incorrect  rendering  of  itatia  ypoccprj  by 
"all  Scripture,"  and  is  supported  by  the  highest  authorities.  The  render- 
ing :  "All  Scripture  inspired  by  God  is  profitable,"  etc.  is  incorrect — 
as  an  attribute  of  all  Scripture  being  tautological.  See  DC 


ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS.  329 

definite  foundation  of  the  dogma  of  inspiration,  or  an 
early  phase  of  the  history  of  doctrines.  It  is  noteworthy 
in  this  connection  that  the  writer  quotes  a  passage  from 
the  third  Gospel  with  the  formula :  "  The  Scripture 
saith."  *  This  could  not  have  been  done  by  Paul,  for  the 
third  Gospel  was  not  in  existence  in  his  time,  much  less 
regarded  as  "  Scripture,"  and  quoted  in  the  same  breath 
with  the  Old  Testament  as  an  authority. 

Characteristic  of  these  Epistles,  as  of  the  deutero- 
Pauline  theology,  is  the  emphasis  which  is  laid  upon  the 
monotheistic  doctrine.  In  apparent  opposition  to  the 
Gnostic  dualism  the  unity  of  God  is  made  especially 
prominent,  and  predicates  of  the  divine  Being  are  multi- 
plied to  a  degree  not  reached  in  the  Pauline  writings,  f 
Some  of  these  predicates  border  very  closely  on  Gnostic 
ideas,  although  they  are  doubtless  not  to  be  taken  in  the 
Gnostic  sense,  \  and  appear  to  be  directed  against  the 
Jewish  anthropomorphism  at  which  the  Gnostics  took 
offence.  Against  the  Gnostic  teaching  that  the  creator  of 
the  world  was  not  the  supreme  God,  the  writer  emphasizes 
the  absoluteness  of  Deity  and  His  unlimited  sway  overall 
things  natural  and  spiritual.  The  one  "  living  God  "  giveth 
life  to  all  things,  is  immortal,  blessed,  the  source  of  all 
blessedness  and  truth.  §  The  application  to  God  of  the 

Wette,  Commentar,  ii.  5,  p.  49,  Holtzmann,  Pastoralbriefe,  p.  440,  and  Pflei- 
derer,  p.  805.  QeoTtvsvdroS  here  only  in  New  Testament. 

*  "  The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  wages,"  I  Tim.  v.  18,  cf.  Luke  x.  7. 
These  words  are  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 

f  i  Tim.  i.  i,  17,  ii.  5,  vi.  15,  16. 

\  See  BaGiXevS  r&v  atoovGOv,  i  Tim.  i.  17,  king  of  the  aeons,  which 
together  give  the  idea  of  eternity,  according  to  Wiesinger.  This  expression 
is  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  New  Testament.  See  also,  "inhabiting  light 
unapproachable,  vi.  16,  also  here  only  in  the  New  Testament,  as  is  oiK<av 
with  the  accusative. 

§  i  Tim.  i.  n,  iii.  15,  iv.  10,  vi.  13,  15  ;    2  Tim.  ii.  13  ;    Tit.  i.  2,  ii.  13. 


330       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

designation  "  Saviour  "  which  elsewhere  is  almost  exclu- 
sively applied  to  Christ  is  a  peculiarity  of  these  Epistles. 
In  Titus  it  is  often  applied  to  Him  and  in  i  Timothy  to 
Him  alone.*  The  most  obvious  explanation  of  this 
peculiarity  is  found  in  an  intentional  opposition  to  Gnos- 
ticism which  assumed  a  creator-God  as  distinct  from  God 
as  a  Saviour.  In  the  same  interest  is  the  emphasis  placed 
upon  the  "  mercy  "  of  God  which  in  two  of  the  Epistles, 
is  added  to  the  "  grace  and  peace  "  of  the  genuine  Pauline 
greeting. 

The  formulas  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ  represented  in  the  Epistles  is  expressed  are  essen- 
tially Pauline.  Christ  is  emphatically  called  "  man  "  in 
accordance  with  Paul's  teaching,  f  although  the  distinctive 
terms  employed  by  the  apostle,  "  second  Adam  "  and 
"  man  from  heaven  "  are  wanting.  As  the  Pauline  Christ 
was  "  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh," 
so  here  we  read  of  "  Jesus  Christ  of  the  seed  of  David."  \ 
His  preexistence  is  plainly  implied  in  the  expressions: 
44  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world,"  and  "  was  manifested 
in  the  flesh."  §  In  the  words  following  this  latter  citation, 
"justified  in  the  Spirit,"  is  expressed  an  idea  wholly 
foreign  to  Paul,  who  does  not  apply  justification  to  Christ. 
The  affirmation  of  a  manifestation  in  the  flesh  reminds  us 
of  the  Johannine  expressions,  "became  flesh,"  "to  come 
in  the  flesh,"  "  to  be  manifested,"  ||  and  is  evidently  di- 
rected against  the  Docetic  Gnosticism,  which  denied  that 

*  i  Tim.  i.  i,  ii.  3,  iv.  10  ;  Tit.  i.  3,  ii.  10,  iii.  4. 
f  I  Tim.  ii.  5  ;  cf.  Rom.  v.  15  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  21. 
\  2  Tim.  ii.  8  ;  cf.  Rom.  i.  3. 

§  i  Tim.  i.  15,  iii.  16.  Tischendorf's  reading  of  the  latter  passage  is 
adopted. 

|i  John  i.  14  ;  I  John  i.  2,  iii.  5,  8,  iv.  2  ;  2  John  7. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC   INTERPRETATIONS,  331 

Jesus  had  a  real  human  body.  The  justification  of  Christ 
in  the  Spirit  can  mean,  according  to  Hoffmann,  nothing 
else  than  that  "  he  who  gave  himself  out  for  something 
which,  according  to  his  earthly  human  nature  he  did  not 
appear  to  be,  was  so  far  justified  as  he  proved  himself  to 
be  what  he  really  was,"  that  is  by  virtue  of  the  spiritual 
principle  which  was  in  him  he  was  shown  by  his  exaltation 
through  the  resurrection  to  be  in  fact  a  heavenly  being. 
The  writer  does  not,  however,  reach  the  Johannine  point 
of  view  from  which  Christ  was  regarded  as  the  Logos  who 
was  God.  The  interpretation  of  the  words :  "  The  ap- 
pearing of  the  glory  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,"  *  is  too  doubtful  to  afford  support  for  a 
doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Christ. 

The  Pauline  point  of  view  is  essentially  represented  by 
the  writer  of  these  Epistles  in  the  teaching  that  "  Christ 
Jesus  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."f  But  in  the  dec- 
laration that  "  Christ  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might 
redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  to  himself  a  people 
to  be  his  own,  zealous  in  good  works,"  J  we  miss  the  dis- 
tinctive Pauline  thought  that  Christ  redeemed  men  from 
11  the  curse  of  the  law,"  and  find  in  the  conception  of  re- 
demption from  iniquity  the  moral  and  educational  influ- 

*  Tit.  ii.  13.  The  correct  interpretation  probably  requires  that  "of"  be 
inserted  before  "our  Saviour."  Grammatically  tfcnrr/poS  Tyjuaor  can  be  at- 
tached as  a  second  attribute  to  the  article  rov,  says  Meyer.  Yet  he  decides 
against  this  interpretation  for  the  reasons  that  0£o5  never  appears  as  an  at- 
tribute, while  the  conjunction  of  God  and  Christ  as  two  subjects  is  common. 
The  Parousia  of  Christ  is  evidently  the  subject  of  the  writer's  thought,  and 
the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  "  glory  of  the  great  God  "  is  probably  the  idea 
expressed. 

f  i  Tim.  ii.  6,  avrikuTpov,  "price  of  redemption."  This  is  not,  how- 
ever, a  Pauline  word. 

\  Tit.  ii.  14. 


33-        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ence  of  Christ  substituted  for  the  metaphysical  thought 
of  Paul,  in  accordance  with  the  post-Pauline  tendency 
already  pointed  out.  The  difference  is  marked  both  in 
terminology  and  in  conception  between  the  abrogation  of 
the  law,  and  the  purification  of  the  individual  from  iniquity 
as  the  result  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Likewise  the  purifi- 
cation of  "  a  people  to  be  his  own  "  *  is  to  be  understood 
of  a  moral  renewal ;  and  Schenkel  remarks  that  the  writer's 
"  mystery  of  godliness  "  is  a  mystery  without  mysticism. 
In  fact  the  Pauline  mysticism  is  wanting  in  the  doctrine 
that  Christ  "  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  incor- 
ruption  to  light  through  the  Gospel"  f  that  is,  by  means  of 
his  teaching.  The  two  great,  fundamental  facts  of  the 
Pauline  theology,  death  and  the  resurrection,  find  in  these 
Epistles,  indeed,  only  incidental  mention.  Certain  false 
teachers,  among  whose  "vain  babblings  "  was  the  affirma- 
tion that  the  resurrection  had  "  already  taken  place,"  are 
censured,  and  charged  with  overthrowing  the  faith  of 
some.  \  This  is  evidently  not  the  error  combated  by 
Paul  of  those  who  denied  that  there  is  a  resurrection,  but 
rather  that  of  the  Gnostics  who,  according  to  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian,  allegorized  and  spiritualized  that  doctrine. 
It  is  characteristic  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  that  they  do 
not  give  to  faith  as  a  factor  in  salvation  the  prominence 
which  it  receives  in  the  Pauline  theology.  Rather  it  is 
put  in  the  background  or  ranked  along  with  the  practical- 
moral  virtues.  Only  in  two  passages  is  it  mentioned  as 
a  means  of  salvation,  §  while  its  association  with  love, 
peace,  etc.,  Is  very  frequent,  as:  "The  end  of  the  com- 
mandment is  love  out  of  a  pure  heart  and  a  good  con- 

*  itepiovtiioS,  a  word  peculiar  to  this  Epistle. 

f  2  Tim.  i.  10.  $  2  Tim.  ii.  18. 

§  i  Tim.  i.  16  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  15. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  333 

science  and  faith  unfeigned  "  ;  "  With  faith  and  love  which 
is  in  Jesus  Christ "  ;  "  If  they  continue  in  faith  and  love 
and  holiness  with  sobriety  "  ;  "  In  word,  in  behavior,  in 
love,  in  faith,  in  purity  "  ;  "  Follow  after  righteousness, 
godliness,  faith,  love,  patience,  meekness."  *  The  espe- 
cial emphasis  laid  upon  works  in  many  passages  may  be 
regarded  as  at  least  relatively  unpauline  in  the  absence  of 
the  central  significance  of  faith,  f  Faith,  indeed,  is  some- 
times regarded  as  the  trustful  appropriation  of  the  truth, 
sometimes  as  a  body  of  doctrine,  and  again  as  the  virtue 
of  fidelity,  while  the  Pauline  conception  of  faith  is  so  far 
lost  sight  of  that  the  general  notion  of  godliness  usurps 
its  place.  \  Along  with  all  this  the  Pauline  point  of  view 
is  distinctively  maintained  on  occasion,  as  when  Timothy 
is  admonished  to  be  "strong  in  the  grace  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  and  when  it  is  declared  that  God  "  called  us  with 
a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according 
to  His  own  purpose  and  the  grace  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesus,"  and  that  He  "  saved  us  not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  did,  but  according  to  His  mercy."  § 
Yet  the  writer  appears  to  lay  an  emphasis  upon  works 
which  has  been  regarded  as  a  "  denial  of  Pauline  princi- 
ples," when,  for  example,  he  says  that  they  who  "  have 
served  well  as  deacons  gain  for  themselves  a  good  stand- 
ing," ||  and  when  he  enjoins  that  the  rich  be  charged  to 
do  good,  be  rich  in  good  works,  liberal  in  imparting,  etc., 

*  i  Tim.  i.  5,  14,  ii.  15,  iv.  12,  vi.  n  ;  cf.  2  Tim.  i.  13,  ii.  22,  iii.  10  ; 
Tit.  ii.  2. 

f  i  Tim.  ii.  10,  v.  10,  25,  vi.  18  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  21,  iii.  17. 

\  i  Tim.  ii.  2,  iii.  16,  iv.  7,  8,  vi.  3,  5,  6,  n  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  5,  12,  16  ;  Tit. 
i.  i,  ii.  12. 

§  2  Tim.  ii.  i,  i.  9  ;  Tit.  iii.  5. 

|  i  Tim.  iii.  13,  "standing"  fiaQjuot,  probably  a  high  degree  of  blessed- 
ness in  heaven. 


334        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

"  laying  up  in  store  for  themselves  a  good  foundation 
against  the  time  to  come."*  This  ascription  of  merit  to 
good  works  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  salvation  depend 
upon  them  is  so  unpauline  that  it  is  regarded  even  by 
Weiss  as  "  surprising."  "  Surprising  "  from  the  Pauline 
point  of  view  certainly  is  the  declaration  that  although 
the  woman  "  being  deceived  fell  into  transgression,"  "she 
will  be  saved  through  child-bearing."  f  One  can  hardly 
think  of  the  apostle  as  striking  this  note.  For  although 
it  is  doubtless  a  "  sound  thought  "  that  woman  best  ac- 
complishes her  destiny  morally  by  fulfilling  her  domestic 
duties,  he  could  not  have  recognized  a  "  saving  "  efficacy 
in  their  performance,  since  in  his  soteriology  faith  is 
paramount,  and  besides,  he  regarded  family  cares  as  a  hin- 
derance  to  the  spiritual  life,  thinking  the  unmarried  condi- 
tion preferable  "  on  account  of  the  impending  distress  " 
and  because  "  the  time  that  remaineth  is  short."  \  In  this 
connection  Pfleiderer  remarks  that  "  it  must  be  conceded 
in  general  that  the  Christianity  recommended  in  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles,  that  of  a  simple,  practical  piety,  so  far  as 
it  abandoned  the  empty  strifes  of  the  theorists  about 
words  and  the  over-strained  excesses  of  the  ascetics,  de- 
serves really  to  be  called  a  sound  doctrine,  and  is  alto- 
gether practicable  for  the  Church,  more  immediately 
practicable  than  the  original  Paulinism  which,  though 
profounder  and  more  spiritual,  abounded  more  for  that 
very  reason  in  theoretical  and  practical  difficulties." 

The  manner  already  referred  to  in  which  faith  is 
spoken  of,  not  from  the  Pauline  point  of  view  as  an  atti- 
tude of  the  individual  believer,  but  in  the  objective  sense 

*  i  Tim.  vi.  18,  19. 

f  I  Tim.  ii.  15.     Adam,  however,  was  not  "deceived"  ! 

\  I  Cor.  viii.  25,  26,  29.  34,  38. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  335 

as  a  body  of  doctrine,  is  an  indication  of  the  ecclesiastical 
interest  of  the  Epistles.  The  strict,  speculative  doctrines 
of  the  apostle  are  thrust  into  the  background  in  the 
struggle  of  the  Church  for  existence,  and  in  its  place  a 
lax  Paulinism  and  an  absorbing  practical  interest  pre- 
dominate. The  conditions  are  those  of  an  organized 
religious  community,  "  the  beginnings  of  the  Catholic 
Church."  It  is  charged  against  the  false  teachers  that 
they  have  "  made  shipwreck  concerning  the  faith,"  "  have 
strayed  away  from  the  faith,"  and  "  have  erred  concern- 
ing the  truth."*  There  is  thus  an  opposition  of  ortho- 
doxy and  heterodoxy  from  the  genuinely  ecclesiastical 
point  of  view.  The  heterodox  are  they  who  "  teach  other 
doctrine,"  f  and  over  against  this  is  set  with  commenda- 
tion the  "  sound  teaching."  \  The  idea  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal standard  of  belief  is  so  far  developed  as  to  lead  to  the 
requirement  of  conformity  on  the  part  of  individuals. 
The  opinion  appears  to  be  correct  that  in  these  Epistles 
is  expressed  a  definite  ecclesiastical  consciousness,  and 
the  idea  of  the  Chufch  receives  its  dogmatic  significance, 
as  in  the  words,  "  House  of  God,  which  is  the  Church  of 
the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  foundation  of  the  truth."  § 

*  i  Tim.  i.  19,  vi.  10 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  18  ;  cf.  iii.  8,  "  reprobate  concerning 
the  faith." 

f  e.TEpo8i8a6Kateiv,  i  Tim.  i.  3,  vi.  3.  The  writer  of  i  Timothy, 
while  opposing  the  extreme  Gnostic  asceticism,  appears  not  have  been  with- 
out some  inclination  toward  this  tendency  of  the  time,  as  is  evident  from  the 
requirement  of  the  single  marriage  of  deacons  and  bishops  as  well  as  of 
widows  who  should  be  assigned  to  positions  of  trust  (v.  9).  "Bodily  exer- 
cise" (6GOH<xriHr)  yvjAva6ia)oi  "the  exercise  of  conscientiousness  relative 
to  the  body,  such  as  is  characteristic  of  ascetics,  and  consists  in  abstinence 
from  matrimony  and  certain  kinds  of  food "  (Grimm-Wilke  Lex.),  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  "  profitable  a  little,"  or  a  short  time  (iv.  8). 

\  i  Tim.  i.  10;  Tit.  i.  9,  ii.  i  ;  cf.  "  sound  words,"  2  Tim.  i.  13. 

§  I  Tim.  iii.  15. 


THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

For  the  encouragement  of  believers  in  view  of  the  false 
teachings  introduced  by  heretics  who  denied  a  future 
resurrection,  etc.,  it  is  said  of  the  Church  or  the  tradi- 
tional belief,  that  "  God's  firm  foundation  standeth,  hav- 
ing this  seal,  '  God  knoweth  those  who  are  His.'  "  As  "  in 
a  great  house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  of  sil- 
ver, but  also  wooden  and  earthen  ones,  and  some  for  honor 
and  some  for  dishonor/'  so  in  the  Church  are  true  believ- 
ers and  also  false  teachers  with  their  "  profane  babblings," 
whose  word,  spreading  its  infection  ever  wider,  "  will  eat 
as  doth  a  canker."  *  The  conception  of  a  well-developed 
ecclesiastical  institution  finds  expression  in  the  reference 
to  "the  office  of  a  bishop,"  in  the  provision  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  heads  of  the  Church,  in  the  distinction  of  the 
office  of  teacher,  in  the  ceremony  of  ordination,  in  special 
requirements  as  to  the  single  marriage  of  bishops,  where- 
by they  are  distinguished  from  "  the  rest,"  and  in  the 
minute  directions  regarding  "  widows."  f 

In  opposition  to  the  aristocratic  soteriology  of  the 
Gnostics,  who  distinguished  a  class -of  "pneumatic"  or 
spiritual  men  as  by  nature  blessed  in  contradistinction 
from  the  "  hylic "  and  "  psychical "  men,  great  stress  is 
laid  in  these  Epistles  upon  the  universality  of  the  divine 
grace.  Hence  prayer  for  "  all  men  "  is  recommended  ;  it 
is  declared  to  be  the  "  will  of  God  our  Saviour  that  all 
men  should  be  saved  "  ;  Christ  is  said  to  have  given  him- 
self "  a  ransom  for  all "  ;  and  God  is  represented  as  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  believers,"  that  is,  not 
especially  of  those  who  pride  themselves  on  their  Gnosis. 
"The  kindness  and  love  for  men  of  God  our  Saviour" 
are  emphasized,  whose  "  grace  bringeth  salvation  to  all 

*  2  Tim.  ii.  16,  17,  19,  20. 

f  i  Tim.  iii.  I,  2,  v.  17,  18  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  6. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  337 

men."  In  an  apparent  inconsistency  with  this  point  of 
view,  which  the  author  does  not  attempt  to  reconcile,  is 
the  teaching  that  those  who  are  Christians  are  "  called 
with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  ac- 
cording to  His  own  purpose  and  the  grace  which  was 
given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began. "f  Not 
easily  reconcilable,  however,  with  this  predestination  are 
the  doctrine  that  in  order  to  be  "  a  vessel  of  honor"  one 
must  "purge"  oneself,  and  the  saying  which  the  author 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  apostle  that  he  "  endures  all 
things  for  the  sake  of  the  elect,  that  they  may  also  obtain 
the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  \  A  predestina- 
tion which  is  "  not  according  to  works  "  is  thus  apparently 
regarded  as  conditioned  not  only  upon  what  "  the  elect  " 
may  do  for  themselves,  but  also  upon  what  another  may 
do  for  them. 

No  well-defined  eschatology  appears  in  these  Epistles. 
From  the  way,  however,  in  which  "  the  last  days "  are 
mentioned  the  Parousia  seems  to  be  a  settled  article  of 
faith  which  is  assumed  as  well  understood  and  requiring 
no  definite  exposition.  This  point  of  view  accords  with 
the  late  date  of  the  Epistles.  The  "  impending  distress  " 
which  Paul  vaguely  refers  to  §  is  here  regarded  as  at 
hand,  and  is  specifically  indicated  as  the  time  when 
"  some  [the  Gnostics]  will  depart  from  the  faith,  giving 
heed  to  seducing  spirits  and  teachings  of  demons."  Ac- 
cordingly, Timothy  is  admonished  to  "  keep  the  com- 
mandments without  spot,  without  reproach,  until  the 
appearing  ||  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  in  His  [God's] 

-."      • 
*  i  Tim.  ii.  i,  4,  6,  iv.  10 ;  Tit.  ii.  n,  iii.  4. 


f  2  Tim.  i.  9  ;  cf.  Rom.  viii.  28  f  ;  Eph.  i.  n  ;  Tit.  iii.  5. 

\  2  Tim.  ii.  10,  21.  §  i  Cor.  vii.  26.  V   ; 

\  £7Ct<pdr£ia,  not  used  by  Paul.      Cf.  Tit.  ii.  13  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  8. 


: 


33$        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

own  times  He  shall  show."  The  vagueness  of  the  expec- 
tation of  the  Parousia  is,  indeed,  indicated  in  the  words 
""in  His  own  times,"  but  there  appears  to  be  no  good 
reason  for  holding  with  Holtzmann  that  Timothy  is  con- 
ceived to  survive  the  Parousia  only  as  "  the  representative 
of  future  generations  of  officials."  *  Since  it  is  uncertain 
that  Paul  taught  that  unbelievers  would  be  raised  at  the 
Parousia,  the  declaration  that  Christ  will  "  judge  the  liv- 
ing and  the  dead "  is  doubtfully  Pauline.f  Nearly  all 
the  distinctive  features  of  the  Pauline  eschatology  are 
wanting.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  apocalyptic  descent 
of  Christ  with  the  sound  of  a  trump  and  the  voice  of  an 
archangel,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  believers  who  had 
"  fallen  asleep  "  and  of  the  "change  "  of  the  living  Chris- 
tians, of  the  deliverance  of  the  groaning  creation,  of  the 
reign  of  Christ  until  his  enemies  should  be  put  under  his 
feet,  and  of  the  saints  as  judges  of  the  world.  The  writer 
does  not  make  Paul  express  the  hope  that  he  may  survive 
the  Parousia,  but  rather  the  conviction  that  he  is  about 
to  die  a  martyr's  cteath,  the  time  of  his  departure  being 
at  hand 4  • 

3. — THE    EPISTLE    OF    JUDE. 

The  so-called  Epistle  of  Jude  is  not  addressed  to  any 
particular  church  or  as  a  circular  letter  to  a  collection  of 
churches,  but  vaguely  "  to  the  called,  loved  in  God  the 
Father  and  kept  by  Jesus  Christ."  It  bears  no  marks  of 
the  apostolic  age,  and  no  traces  of  the  Pauline-Jewish 
controversy  appear  in  it.  "  The  common  salvation  "  is 
represented  as  in  peril,  and  the  readers  are  summoned 
"  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was  once 

*  i  Tim.  iv.  i,  vi.  14,  15  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  1-6. 

\  2  Tim.  iv.  i.  \  2  Tim.  iv.  6. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  339 

delivered  to  the  saints/'  on  account  of  "  certain  men  " 
who  "  have  stealthily  crept  in,"  men  "  appointed  before- 
hand for  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,  turning  the 
grace  of  our  God  into  wantonness  and  denying  the  only 
Sovereign  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  *  As  "  an 
example  "  of  the  destruction  which  awaits  these  men  the 
writer  refers  to  the  faith  of  unbelieving  Israelites,  to  the 
apocryphal  story  of  "  the  angels  who  kept  not  their  prin- 
cipality," and  have  been  "  kept  in  everlasting  chains  under 
darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,"  f  and  to 
the  calamity  which  befell  "  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and 
the  cities  about  them."  Not  only  was  the  appearance  of 
these  unbelievers  and  libertines  foretold  by  "  the  apostles," 
but  Enoch  "  the  seventh  from  Adam  "  prophesied  against 
them.J  In  view  of  these  perils  and  evils  the  writer  ad- 
monishes his  readers  to  build  themselves  up  on  their  most 
holy  faith,  looking  for  the  manifestation  of  the  mercy  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  would  be  shown  to  them  at 
his  coming,  "  unto  eternal  life."  The  theoretical  errors 
about  which  the  writer  is  filled  with  anxiety  and  against 
which  he  raises  a  timely  warning  are  the  denial  of  God  as 
"  the  only  Sovereign "  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
Besides  this  denial  of  the  fundamental  Christian  principles 
of  doctrine  the  charge  is  brought  against  these  heretics 
and  enemies  of  the  truth  that  they  are  morally  corrupt 
"  turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into  wantonness."  As 

*  Jude  1-5. 

f  Jude  6  ;  cf.  the  story  in  the  book  of  Enoch  of  the  angels  who  "  cor- 
rupted themselves"  with  the  daughters  of  men,  x.  12,  xv.  3.  The  writer 
appears  to  regard  the  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch  as  good  Scripture.  This 
myth  is  also  recorded  in  Gen.  vi.  2,  but  the  reference  to  the  punishment  of 
the  angels  shows  the  quotations  in  the  Epistle  to  have  been  made  from  Enoch. 

\  The  word  "  apostles"  is  not  determinable.  Perhaps  the  writer  had  in 
mind  I  Tim.  iv.  I  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  I,  iv.  3.  See  Enoch  i.  9. 


34°        THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

libertines  given  over  to  unbridled  lust,  they  are  called 
"  sensual,  not  having  the  Spirit."  *  Not  only  do  they 
"  defile  the  flesh,"  but  they  also  "  despise  dominion,  and 
rail  at  dignities,"  i.  e.,  good  and  evil  angels,  whereby  they 
show  a  presumption  greater  than  that  of  Michael  who, 
when  contending  with  the  Devil  about  the  body  of  Moses, 
dared  not  bring  against  him  a  railing  accusation,  f  They 
"  rail  at  the  things  which  they  know  not,"  and  at  the  feasts 
of  love  are  "  cliffs"  on  which  others  are  wrecked,  "  feeding 
only  themselves  "  in  the  satisfaction  of  their  fleshly  lusts. 
The  reference  to  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints," 
as  a  given  and  accepted  form  of  doctrine  and  to  the 
apostles  as  having  delivered  their  prophecy  concerning 
the  scoffers  who  would  appear  "  at  the  last  time,"  indicates 
the  post-apostolic  age  as  the  time  of  the  writer.  A  more 
precise  date  is  furnished  with  great  probability,  and  a 
setting  of  the  Epistle  is  given  by  which  its  distinguishing 
features  are  explained, in  the  historical  fact  of  the  appearance 
in  Alexandria  towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century  of 
Karpokrates  and  his  son  Epiphanes,  whose  teachings  and 
moral  principles  are  so  definitely  referred  to  in  it,  that 
Clement  of  Alexandria  thought  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
prophetically  announced  them.  ^  In  the  dualism  of  the 
Gnostics  which  made  a  sharp  distinction  between  the 
spirit  and  the  flesh  there  lay  the  peril  of  moral  indifference 
as  to  the  relations  of  men  to  matter,  and  of  a  tendency  to 

*  Jude  4,  9. 

f  Jude  8  ;  cf.  Eph.  i.  21  ;  2  Peter  ii.  10.  The  source  of  this  legend 
of  the  strife  about  the  body  of  Moses  is  unknown.  Origen  refers  it  to  an 
apocryphal  writing,  avdfta(5i<s  rov  MooS^'oaS.  To  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  the  story  appears  to  be  good  Scripture.  His  conception  of  canon- 
icity  was  evidently  not  more  definite  than  that  of  other  Christian  writers  of 
the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

$  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.,  iii.  2,    n. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  341 

regard  it  as  a  mark  of  true  spiritual  freedom  to  give  free 
rein  to  the  sensuous  impulses  and  passions.  In  fact,  it  is 
reported  of  the  Karpokratians  that  their  doctrines  threat- 
ened the  overthrow  of  the  domestic  and  social  order. 
Epiphanes  in  a  book  on  "  Righteousness  "  appears  to 
have  attempted  with  unequalled  effrontery  to  exalt  licen- 
tiousness into  a  cult  by  advocating  a  community  of 
goods  and  women  and  a  disregard  of  the  traditional 
rights  of  the  marriage  relation  as  hostile  to  the  more 
sacred  rights  of  nature.  The  righteousness  of  God,  he 
taught,  is  community  under  the  condition  of  equality. 
The  natural  order  of  absolute  community  and  equality 
has  been  violated  by  the  evil  angels  who  have  limited  the 
community  of  goods  by  the  institution  of  property  and 
that  of  women  by  establishing  marriage.  The  god  of  the 
Jews,  the  subordinate  of  the  Supreme  One,  commanding 
that  a  man  should  not  covet  his  neighbor's  goods  or 
wife  was  the  cause  of  theft  and  adultery,  according  to 
Paul's  doctrine  that  sin  is  known  through  the  law.  Re- 
garding Christ  he  taught  that  he  was  a  man  like  other 
men,  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  had  only  this  advantage  over 
others,  that  his  remarkably  strong  and  pure  soul  remem- 
bered what  in  his  preexistence  he  had  seen  near  to  God. 
Therefore  he  was  loved  of  God,  and  endowed  with  power 
from  on  high  at  the  baptism  that  he  might  escape  the 
world-creator.  One  cannot  but  recognize  in  the  Epistle 
the  condemnation  of  the  immorality,  of  the  denial  of  the 
sovereignty  of  God,  and  of  the  current  ideas 'of  Christ, 
which  characterized  this  Gnostic  sect.  There  appear, 
accordingly,  to  be  very  good  grounds  for  Mayerhoffs  con- 
jecture that  the  writing  originated  in  Alexandria  where 
the  book  of  Enoch  and  the  Assumption  of  Moses  were 
held  in  high  esteem. 


342       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 
4. — THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

The  second  Epistle  written  in  the  name  of  Peter  is 
vaguely  addressed  to  "  those  who  have  obtained  like 
precious  faith  with  us,"  and  like  that  of  Jude  is  directed 
against  the  "  false  teachers  "  who  threatened  to  overthrow 
the  Christian  doctrine  and  corrupt  the  Church.  In  fact, 
almost  the  entire  substance  of  Jude  has  been  incorporated 
into  it,  and  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  variation  on  the  theme 
of  the  other  without  the  force,  directness,  and  clearness  of 
the  original.*  The  writer  avoids  the  quotation  of  apoc- 
ryphal books  at  which  the  author  of  Jude  did  not  scruple, 
although  ii.  1 1  shows  an  acquaintance  with  Jude  9  and 
doubtless  a  use  of  its  idea  in  a  way  to  avoid  the  recogni- 
tion of  an  apocryphal  writing.  The  point  of  view  of  the 
writer  is  practical  and  hortative  rather  than  doctrinal.  He 
writes  in  apparent  ignorance  of  the  Pauline  and  Johannine 
theologies  and  of  the  controversies  of  the  apostolic  age. 
"  The  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  "  f  is  made  more  promi- 
nent than  faith  which  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
virtue,  knowledge,  etc.,  \  and  nothing  is  said  of  the  atone- 
ment and  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  A  doc- 
trine which  is  not  apostolic,  and  does  not  find  elsewhere 
a  post-apostolic  expression,  is  that  through  the  promises 
of  God  believers  may  "  become  partakers  of  the  divine 
nature."  §  Against  the  "  cunningly  devised  fables  "  of 
the  false  teachers  the  writer  proposes  to  make  known  to 
his  readers  "  the  power  and  coming  (the  Parousia)  of  our 

*  2  Peter  ii.  II  compared  with  Jude  9  is  vague  and  flat,  ii.  12  is  a  misin- 
terpretation of  the  image  in  Jude  10,  and  ii.  17  contains  a  confusing  of  the 
figures  in  Jude  12  f.  Compare  further  iii.  2  with  Jude  17,  and  iii.  3-5  with 
Jude  1 8,  where  the  original  is  expanded  so  as  to  change  the  theme  entirely. 

f  2  Peter  i.  2,  8,  ii.  20,  iii.  18. 

\  2  Peter  i.  5-8.  §  2  Peteri.  4,  Beia<5 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  343 

Lord  Jesus  Christ  "'  through  the  personal  testimony  of  the 
reputed  author,  Peter,  in  the  voice  from  heaven  at  the 
transfiguration.  Something  more  sure  than  even  this  is, 
however,  "  the  prophetic  word,"  or  this  word  is  made  more 
sure  by  the  voice  heard  "  in  the  holy  mount." •*  At  any 
rate  "  the  power  and  coming  "  of  Christ  are  established 
by  prophecy,  although  the  place  where  these  prophetic 
words  may  be  found  is  not  indicated,  and  the  writer  takes 
occasion  to  express  the  dogma  of  the  Church  in  his  time 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  given  by  divine  inspiration. 
"  For  prophecy  never  came  by  the  will  of  man,  but  moved 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  men  spoke  from  God."  f 

The  writer  apparently  turns  aside  to  answer  a  class  of 
"  scoffers  "  not  mentioned  in  Jude,  those  whb  "  in  the  last 
days  "  ask :  "  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  [Christ's]  com- 
ing ?  for  from  the  time  when  the  fathers  fell  asleep  all 
things  continue  as  then,  and  as  they  have  continued  from 
the  beginning  of  the  creation."  Hereupon  he  takes 
occasion  to  set  forth  at  some  length  his  views  of  the  sec- 
ond coming  of  Christ  beginning  with  a  peculiar  cosmogony 
which  runs  to  the  effect  that  the  heavens  were  made  by 
the  word  of  God,  but  an  earth  was  "  formed  out  of  water 
and  by  the  water,"  by  means  of  which  came  the  deluge; 
but  the  present  heavens  and  earth  are  "  reserved  for  fire 
against  the  day  of  judgment  and  the  perdition  of  ungodly 
men."  \  He  then  proceeds  to  set  aside  the  taunt  of  the 
"  scoffers  "  by  reminding  the  "  beloved  "  that  "  one  day  is 
with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years 
as  one  day."  The  delay  of  the  Parousia  is  on  account 
of  God's  long-suffering  toward  them,  since  He  is  "  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish  but  that  all  should  come  to 

*  The  meaning  of  the  words  is  doubtful. 

f  2  Peter  i.  16-21  ;  cf.  iii.  2.  ^2  Peter  iii.  4-8. 


344       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

repentance."  "  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a 
thief,  in  which  the  heavens  will  pass  away  with  a  great 
noise,  and  the  elements  will  melt  with  fervent  heat,  and 
the  earth  and  the  works  which  are  therein  will  be  burned 
up."*  Then  follows  a  practical  application  of  the  teaching 
in  an  exhortation  to  the  "  beloved  "  to  be  godly,  looking 
for  and  hastening  (i.  e.,  by  their  repentance  obviating  the 
further  long-suffering  of  God)  the  day,  after  the  terrors  of 
which  are  looked  for  according  to  His  promise  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,  f  This 
latter  feature  suggests  the  Pauline  idea  of  the  deliverance 
of  the  groaning  and  travailling  creation  from  the  bondage 
of  corruption.  But  as  the  crash  of  the  heavens  and  the 
world-conflagration  are  wanting  in  Paul's  conception  of  the 
end,  so  here  we  miss  the  apostle's  humane  interest  in  the 
believers  who  had  "  fallen  asleep,"  the  resurrection,  the 
"  change  "  of  the  faithful  living,  the  ascent  to  meet  the 
longed-for  Christ  in  the  air,  and  the  blessed  "  forever  with 
the  Lord  !  "  For  the  false  teachers  and  their  followers 
and  apparently  for  unbelievers  generally  the  writer  of  this 
Epistle  has  no  words  of  hope.  "  The  judgment  long  ago 
ordained  lingereth  not,  and  their  destruction  slumbereth 
not."  "  Children  of  a  curse,"  their  last  state  is  worse  than 
their  first,  if  they  have  turned  from  the  holy  command- 
ment delivered  to  them.  With  "  the  day  of  judgment  " 
is  connected  "  the  perdition  of  ungodly  men."  The  un- 

*  2  Peter  iii.  8-10. 

f  This  "  promise"  (iii.  13)  is  not,  however,  pointed  out.  Did  the  writer 
perhaps  think  that  by  the  current  method  of  interpretation  it  could  be  derived 
from  the  Old  Testament,  or  had  he  in  mind  certain  passages  in  the  book  of 
Enoch,  "The  former  heaven  will  pass  away,  and  a  new  heaven  will  ap- 
pear" ?  Enoch  xc.  17  ;  cf.  liv.  4,  5,  x.  27,  1.  6.  The  idea  of  a  conflagra- 
tion of  the  earth  was  probably  borrowed  from  the  ancient  Greek  natural 
philosophy. 


ANTI-GNOSTIC  INTERPRETATIONS.  345 

righteous  the  Lord  "  knoweth  how  to  reserve  under  pun- 
ishment to  the  day  of  judgment,"  so  that  they  are  sup- 
posed to  enter  immediately  at  death  upon  their  torment. 
This  doom  is  "  chiefly  "  reserved  for  those  who  "  walk 
after  the  flesh  in  the  lust  of  uncleanness,  and  despise 
dominion."  *  The  prominence  of  eschatological  teaching 
in  the  Epistle  furnishes  support  to  the  opinion  that  its  real 
object  was  not  so  much  to  refute  the  false  teachers  of  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  as  those  who  in  the  time  of  the  writer  ad- 
vocated the  unchangeability  and  permanence  of  the  world 
and  spiritualized  the  second  coming  of  Christ  or  denied  it 
altogether,  f  Spiritualistic  views  of  this  sort  prevailed 
under  gentile-Christian  influence  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century,  and  no  dealing  with  them  could  have 
been  deemed  more  effective  than  to  combat  them  under 
the  name  of  an  apostle.J 

*  2  Peter  ii.  3,  9,  15,  20,  iii.  7. 

f  Irenaeus  perhaps  refers  to  these  teachers,  Adv.  haer. ,  v.  19,  2  :  substan- 
tiam  a  semetipsa  floruisse  et  essa  se  natam  .  .  .  alii  adventum  Domine 
contemnunt,  etc. 

\  Besides  the  general  works  referred  to  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  chap- 
ter the  student  may  consult:  Holtzmann,  Die  Pastoralbriefe,  etc.,  1880; 
Kostlin,  Lehrbegr.  des  Evangel,  und  der  Brief e  Johannes  ;  the  articles  on 
"Johannes"  and  "  Petrus  "  in  Herzog's  Real  Encyclop.,  and  those  on 
"Johannes,  Briefe  des,"  "Pastoralbriefe,"  and  "  Petrus  der  zweite  Brief 
des,"  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Das  Evangel,  und  die  Briefe 
Johannes  ;  Baur,  Die  Pastoralbriefe,  etc. ;  Lipsius,  Der  Gnosticismus,  sein 
Wesen,  Ursprung,  und  Entwickelungsgang,  1860,  and  article  "  Gnosis  "  in 
Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Johanneischen  Briefe,  Theol. 
Jahrb.  1855,  pp.  471  ff. ;  the  De  Wette-Briickner  and  Meyer-Huther  Com- 
mentaries on  the  Epistles  in  question. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN    APOCALYPTIC. 

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  apocalyptic  exhibits  the  dis- 
tinctive traits  of  its  Jewish  predecessor  together  with 
certain  modifications  of  the  latter  determined  by 
a  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  Common  to  both  are 
fantastic  ideas  of  God's  relation  to  the  world  and  a  naive 
disregard  of  the  historical  continuity  of  affairs.  The 
Jewish  apocalyptic  literature  has  been  described  by  one 
scholar  as  "  an  imitation  of  prophecy  called  forth  by  the 
longing  of  a  time  destitute  of  prophets,"  *  and  by  another 
as  "  that  species  of  Scripture  dating  from  the  Maccabean 
age,  in  which  the  prophetic  spirit  put  forth  an  after-bloom 
which  in  originality  and  religious  worth  is  far  inferior  to 
the  writings  of  the  old  prophets."  f  A  study  of  it  with 
reference  to  the  later  Jewish  idea  of  God  has  resulted  in 
the  definition  :  "  A  detachment  of  the  Messianic  expec- 
tations from  the  earthly  political  ideal  and  an  enhance- 
ment of  them  into  the  supernatural."  %  To  whatever 
cause  may  be  due  this  enhancement  of  the  original 
Messianic  ideal  into  the  supernatural,  it  is  manifestly  a 
distinctive  feature  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses  from  Daniel 
(167  B.C.)  to  the  later  productions  of  this  literature  which 
belong  to  the  first  century  of  our  era.  They  are  charac- 

*  Hilgenfeld,  Die  jlidisch.  Apokalyptik,  p.  10. 
f  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum,  p.  307. 
\  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  2te  Aufl.  p.  100. 

346 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  347 

terized  not  only  by  an  idealization  of  the  person  of  the 
Messiah,  but  also  by  a  conception  of  divine  judgment 
which  proceeds  catastrophically  in  disregard  of  the  natural 
relation  of  cause  and  effect.  An  eschatological  consum- 
mation which  sets  historical  development  at  defiance,  a 
Messianic  kingdom  descending  from  heaven,  and  a  Messiah 
riding  on  the  clouds,  are  fantastic  traits  of  this  strange 
literature. 

The  influence  of  their  apocalyptic  national  literature 
upon  the  Jewish-Christian  New  Testament  writers  is  evi- 
dent from  a  comparison  of  the  portions  of  their  works 
which  belong  to  this  category  with  the  former.  An  ideal- 
ization of  Jesus,  the  persistent  tendency  to  which  has 
already  been  frequently  pointed  out,  corresponding  to  that 
of  the  expected  Messiah  among  the  Jews  during  the 
century  or  two  preceding  our  era,  and  an  ardent  desire 
for  his  re-appearance  in  a  truly  glorious  Messianic  mani- 
festation, were  conditions  favorable  to  the  production  of 
Christian  apocalypses.  The  apocalyptic  section  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels  has  already  been  referred  to,  and  reasons 
have  been  given  for  thinking  that  it  was  the  product  of 
the  Messianic  hopes  and  expectations  of  the  Jewish- 
Christian  followers  of  Jesus  rather  than  a  report  of  actual 
words  of  his.  It  is  not  without  significance  that  criticism 
has  detected  a  Jewish-apocalyptic  kernel  in  this  section, 
around  which  the  entire  apocalypse  of  the  Parousia 
appears  to  have  been  constructed.  Whether  this  critical 
hypothesis  be  tenable  or  no,  the  imitation  of  the  apoc- 
alyptic literature  of  Judaism  is  unmistakable  in  the  syn- 
optic apocalypse  with  its  Messiah  on  the  clouds,  its 
"  throne  of  glory,"  and  its  general  catastrophic  features. 

Besides  the  apocalyptic  features  contained  in  the  genu- 
ine Epistles  of  Paul,  which  have  been  discussed  in  Chapter 


348        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Ill,  the  little  apocalypse  in  2  Thessalonians  ii.  1-12  which 
forms  the  centre  of  this  writing,  and  for  the  sake  of  which 
the  letter  was  probably  composed,*  requires  consideration 
here.  Apart  from  other  reasons  for  its  spuriousness, 
which  cannot  be  discussed  here,  the  rest  of  the  Epistle  is 
so  manifestly  an  imitation  of  the  first  as  to  leave  little 
room  for  doubt  of  it.  The  second  chapter  has  been 
characterized  as  "  a  transference  of  the  apocalyptic  escha- 
tology  into  the  Pauline  sphere  of  thought."  f  Here 
traits  appear  which  are  unpauline  and  irreconcilable  with 
the  point  of  view  of  the  first  Epistle.  In  the  latter  "  the 
day  of  the  Lord  "  is  represented  as  coming  without  any 
sign,  like  "  a  thief  in  the  night,"  and  this  the  Thessalonians 
are  said  to  "know  full  well,"  and  "  as  sons  of  the  light  " 
not  to  be  "  in  darkness  "  that  it  should  "  overtake  "  them4 
Paul  himself  expects  to  be  among  the  "  living  "  who  shall 
witness  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  the  heavens  "  with  a 
loud  summons,  with  the  voice  of  an  archangel,  and  with 
the  trump  of  God."  §  But  in  the  little  apocalypse  of 
the  second  Epistle  not  only  are  the  readers  cautioned 
against  thinking  the  great  day  "  near  at  hand,"  but  defi- 
nite indications  of  its  approach  are  mentioned.  It  will 
not  come,  the  writer  declares,  "  until  the  apostasy  shall 
have  come  first,  and  the  man  of  fin  have  been  revealed, 
the  son  of  perdition  ;  he  that  opposeth  and  exalteth  him- 
self above  every  one  that  is  called  God,  or  worthy  of 
worship,  so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God  showing 
himself  to  be  God."  ||  The  readers,  are  asked,  moreover, 

*  Weizsacker,  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  2te  Aufl.  pp.  238  f. 
f  Holtzmann,  Einleit.,  2te  Aufl.  p.  240. 
\  i  Thess.  v.  2,  5. 
§  i  Thess.  iv.  15,  16. 
I  2  Thess.  ii.  2-4. 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  349 

if  they  do  not  remember  that  Paul  himself  had  told  them 
all  these  things  when  he  was  with  them.  The  prominent 
features  of  the  section  in  question  show  more  affinity 
with  the  so  called  Johannine  Apocalypse  than  with  the 
genuine  Pauline  eschatology  which  is  distinguished  by  a 
soteriological  interest,  whose  absence  is  characteristic  of 
this  spurious  construction  of  "  the  last  things."  Opposing 
the  indolence  which  arose  from  the  expectation  of  the 
Parousia  near  at  hand  and  intent  on  introducing  his 
peculiar  eschatology,  the  writer  deals  in  terms  which  are 
obscure  and  inexplicable.  Who  is  intended  by  "  the  man 
of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,"  and  what  is  "  that  which  re- 
straineth  "  (TO  xarexov)  or  "  the  one  that  restraineth  " 
(6  xaTfyGor],  cannot  be  certainly  determined.  This  only 
is  certain,  that  the  writer  had  in  mind  conditions  of  his 
own  time,  whether  the  Roman  power  as  it  was  toward 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  or  the  heresy  and  heretics 
of  the  beginning  of  the  second.  The  adversary,  "  the 
satanic  counterpart  of  the  Parousia,"  he  declares,  in  true 
apocalyptic  style,  "  the  Lord  Jesus  will  consume  with 
the  breath  of  his  mouth,  and  destroy  with  the  mani- 
festation of  his  coming."* 

The  canonical  Christian  apocalypse  par  Eminence  is  that 
traditionally  ascribed  to  the  apostle  John,  and  known  in 
our  English  Bible  as  the  Revelation.  That  it  was  not 
written  by  John,  however,  is  a  conclusion  scarcely  contest- 
able  in  view  of  the  recent  critical  investigations  of  its 
character  and  composition,  among  which  are  deserving  of 
especial  mention  the  contributions  of  Volter,  Vischer, 
Weizsacker,  Pfleiderer,  and  Weyland.  These  scholars  all 
agree  that  the  work  is  the  composition  of  different  writers, 
whose  contributions  were  made  at  different  times  more  or 

*  2  Thess.  ii.  8. 


35O       THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

less  remote.*  It  would  be  foreign  to  the  present  purpose 
to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  origin  of  this  writing, 
since  we  are  concerned  with  it  only  as  an  interpretation 
of  the  gospel.  The  question  whether  the  groundwork  of 
the  book  is  Jewish  or  Jewish-Christian  is  of  course  impor- 
tant for  the  end  in  view,  but  as  the  reasons  for  the  former 
hypothesis  are  by  no  means  conclusive  f  or  generally 
accepted,  our  discussion  may  well  proceed  upon  the  latter. 
The  work  is  as  to  its  greater  part  distinctively  an  apoca- 
lypse (ocnoHaXvfyif)  or  a  revelation  concerning  the  last 
things,  according  to  the  eschatological  application  of  the 
term  established  by  Paul,  J  and  is  occupied  with  dis- 
closures of  the  future  fortune  and  consummation  to  which 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  was  supposed  to  be  hasten- 
ing. Like  its  Jewish  prototype  it  presupposes  a  time  of 
storm  and  stress,  when  men  felt  that  the  existing  tribula- 
tion was  no  longer  endurable,  and  looked  with  eager 
expectation  for  the  intervention  of  the  celestial  powers  to 
bring  relief  and  effect  the  triumph  of  their  cause  by  a 
violent  rupture  of  the  course  of  events.  Since  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  declarations  in  the  first  chapter  that  the 
disclosures  are  of  "  what  must  shortly  come  to  pass,"  and 
that  "  the  time  is  at  hand,"  §  the  only  hermeneutical 

*  VSlter's  division  is  as  follows  :  i.  The  original  Apocalypse  of  the  apostle 
John  of  the  year  65  or  66  ;  2.  An  addition  by  the  same  hand  of  the  year  68 
or  69  ;  3.  The  first  revision  in  the  time  of  Trajan  ;  4.  The  second  revision 
of  the  year  129  or  130  ;  5.  The  third  revision  of  the  year  140. — Die  Entste- 
hung  der  Apokalypse,  1885.  Vischer  regards  the  work  as  an  original  Jewish 
apocalypse  with  additions  by  the  hand  of  a  Christian,  Die  Offenbarung 
Johannis,  etc.,  1886. 

f  This  hypothesis  is,  however,  supported  by  Harnack  and  Martineau.  See 
the  former's  "Nachwort"  to  Vischer's  treatise  and  the  latter's  Seat  of 
Authority  in  Religion,  pp.  225  f. 

\  Rom.  ii.  5,  viii.  19. 

§Rev.  i.  1,3. 


JE  WISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCAL  YPTIC.  35  I 

method  by  which  the  problems  of  the  book  can  be  solved 
is  the  one  that  seeks  the  key  to  them  in  the  circumstances 
of  the  time  of  the  writer  or  writers.  Its  interpretation 
has  been  greatly  impeded  by  the  presumption  that  all  its 
allusions  to  men  and  events  must  be  explained  with 
reference  to  the  time  of  the  apostle  John,  and  by  the 
allegorizing  which  has  applied  them  throughout  the  whole 
extent  of  the  history  of  Christendom. 

With  regard  to  Vischer's  contention  that  the  Revelation 
presents  no  unity  of  doctrine,  Judaism  and  Christianity 
lying  in  it  side  by  side  without  reconciliation,  Holtz- 
mann's  discrimination  is  important,  that  a  distinction 
must  be  made  between  a  Jewish  basis  of  the  apocalyptic 
sphere  of  thought  and  a  Jewish  groundwork  of  the  book 
as  a  literary  product.*  Evidences  of  the  former  abound 
in  the  prevailing  Old-Testament  modes  of  thought  and 
images  and  the  reverence  and  affection  shown  for  Jeru- 
salem, the  "  holy  "  and  the  "  beloved  "  city.  The  earth 
is  the  theatre  of  the  eschatological  drama,  and  when  "  the 
first  earth  "  has  "  passed  away  "  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth  are  created — "  an  evident  proof  of  the  genuinely 
Jewish  materiality  of  this  contemplation  of  the  world." 
But  this  may  be  also  Jewish-Christian  ;  for,  as  Baur 
remarks,  the  Revelation  passes  here  only  by  degrees 
beyond  the  synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Pauline  sphere  of 
thought.  The  idea  of  God  is  Judaeo-theocratic  rather 
than  Christian.  He  sits  on  his  throne  in  heaven — that 
"  archetypal  sanctuary,"  for  in  the  Jewish  theology  as 
well  as  in  Hebrews  heaven  is  "  the  idealized  archetype 
of  the  earth."  He  is  the  Almighty,  King,  Lord  (S^anoTrj^ 
and  out  of  His  throne  proceed  thunders  and  lightnings,  f 

*  Hand-Commentar,  iv.  p.  266. 

f  Rev.  i.  8,  iv.  5,  8,  xi.  17,  xv.  3,  xvi.  7,  14,  xxi.  22. 


352        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

He  is  the  "  only  holy,"  the  one  "  who  is,  and  was,  and  is 
to  come,"  "the  Alpha  and  the  Omega. "*  He  reigns  in 
magnificent  state,  "  in  appearance  "  on  his  throne  "  like 
a  jasper-stone  and  a  sardius."  Twenty-four  "  elders," 
probably  representing  the  martyrs,  golden-crowned  and 
white-robed,  sit  on  twenty-four  thrones  around  Him. 
There  are  seven  lamps  of  fire,  "which  are  the  seven 
spirits  of  God,"  and  "a  sea  of  glass,"  and  four  "living 
creatures  "  representing  perhaps  the  totality  of  created 
beings,  f  His  prominent  attribute  is  justice  which  ex- 
presses itself  in  penalty.  Vengeance  and  retribution 
proceed  from  Him  and  His  wrath  issues  in  terror  and 
blood.  \  His  paternal  relation  to  men  is  scarcely  recog- 
nized. 

The  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  in  the  Revelation 
is  unique  among  the  Christologies  of  the  New  Testament 
in  having  as  its  basis  the  Messianism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  later  Judaism — a  fact  which  has  influenced 
opinion  adversely  to  the  unity  of  the  book.  He  is  "  King 
of  kings  "  and  "  Lord  of  lords,"  the  "  lion  that  is  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah  "  and  "  the  shoot  from  David."  §  He  is 
the  ruler  of  the  nations  and  governs  them  "  with  a  rod  of 
iron,"  a  sharp  sword  issues  from  his  mouth,  that  with  it 
he  may  smite  them,  and  "  he  treadeth  the  wine-press  of 
the  fierceness  of  the  wrath  of  God  Almighty."  |  The 
child  of  the  theocracy,  he  escapes  at  his  birth  the  pursuit 
of  the  Devil,  "  the  great  red  dragon  "  and  is  "  caught  up 
to  God  and  His  throne."  Along  with  these  Jewish  or 
Jewish-Christian  traits  appear  various  distinctively  Chris- 

*  Rev.  i.  8.     Cf.  Isa  xliv.  6.     See  also  iv.  9,  xv.  3,  xviii.  8. 

f  Rev.  iv.  3-11.  \  Rev.  xiv.  20,  xvi.  I,  xix.  15,  17-21. 

§  Rev.  v.  5,  xvii.  14,  xix.  16. 

|   Rev.  xii.  5,  xix.  15.     See  Ps.  ii.  9,  Isa.  xi.  4  ;  Ps.  Salom.  xvii.  26. 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  353 

tian  designations  of  Christ.  He  is  called  "  the  first-born 
of  the  dead,"  the  one  who  "overcame  and  sat  down  with 
my  father  on  his  throne."  *  The  conquering  of  the  Devil 
in  a  "  war "  and  the  casting  of  him  out  of  heaven,  his 
abode  down  to  the  time  of  this  conflict,  apparently,  is 
celebrated  as  a  vindication  of  the  "  authority  "  of  Christ. 
This  transfer  of  Christ's  conflict  with  Satan  from  the 
earth,  where  it  takes  place  according  to  the  Gospel-story, 
to  heaven,  is  peculiar,  and  accords  with  the  indifference 
manifested  throughout  the  book  to  the  earthly  life  of 
Jesus — a  trait  of  apocalypse,  which  is  nothing  if  not  un- 
historical.  It  comports  with  the  extravagant  idealization 
of  Christ  which  pervades  this  work  that  various  predicates 
of  the  Deity  are  here  applied  to  him.  He  is  called  "  the 
first  and  the  last,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  Alpha 
and  the  Omega."  As  the  exalted  Lamb  he  receives 
divine  worship  from  the  angels  and  the  entire  creation, 
and  in  one  place  traits  of  "  the  Ancient  of  Days "  in 
Daniel  are  ascribed  to  him.  f  An  ascription  to  him  of 
a  divine  nature  does  not,  however,  appear  to  be  implied 
in  these  designations.  He  is  not  called  Lord  God,  and 
the  term  Almighty  is  reserved  for  the  Deity  alone.  In 
fact,  he  is  said  to  have  been  "  the  beginning  of  the 
creation  of  God,"  or  the  first  creature — an  exaltation 
inferior  to  that  in  Hebrews  i.  10,  "  Lord,  who  in  the 
beginning  didst  found  the  earth."  It  is  probable  also 
that  deification  is  not  intended  in  the  application  to  Jesus 
of  the  term,  "the  Logos  of  God,"J  which  is  used  in 
connection  with  the  comparison  of  this  agency  to  a  sharp 
sword  proceeding  out  of  his  mouth — a  figure  of  his  execu- 

*  Rev.  i.  5,  ii.  8,  iii.  21,  vii.  17.  See  xxii.  i,  3,  "throne  of  God  and  the 
Lamb."  s 

f  Rev.  i.  13,  17,  xxi.  6,  xxii.  13.  \  Rev.  xix.  *•«  "- 

23 


354       THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

tion  of  the  penal  judgments  of  God.  The  designation 
probably  signifies  that  it  is  he  who  discloses  and  fulfils 
the  word  of  God.  While  there  is  an  implication  here  of 
the  preexistence  of  Christ,  the  doctrinal  point  of  view 
is  evidently  remote  from  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in 
which  Christ  is  conceived  not  as  "  the  Logos  of  God," 
but  as  "  the  Logos  "  (o  Xoyos)  absolutely.  We  have  here 
perhaps  the  beginning  of  the  later  developed  Logos 
doctrine,  the  contribution  of  Jewish  Christianity  to  the 
conception  which  it  required  the  Alexandrian  philosophy 
to  complete.  The  ideal  character  of  the  Christology  of 
the  book  comports  with  the  apocalyptic  point  of  view. 
All  the  exalted  qualities  ascribed  to  the  Messiah  are 
purely  nominal,  and  have  no  connection  with  him  as  a 
concrete  personality.  The  extravagant  eschatological 
expectations  in  which  the  book  is  rooted  appear  to  have 
been  the  motive  of  the  Christology,  and  the  Messiah  who 
was  to  come  is  conceived  to  be  endowed  with  qualities 
and  powers  corresponding  to  the  imagined  splendors  of 
his  advent. 

With  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ  the  emphasis  is 
laid  as  in  Paul  upon  his  death,  and  the  Johannine  idea 
of  his  love  for  the  believers  finds  distinct  expression. 
An  ascription  of  praise  is  made  to  "  him  who  loveth  us, 
and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  made 
us  a  kingdom,  priests  to  God  his  Father."  *  The  Pauline 
terminology  is  employed  in  the  use  of  dyopd&iv,  "  to 
buy  off,"  to  redeem:  "Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast 
redeemed  us  (bought  us  off)  to  God  by  thy  blood."  f 
The  redeemed  are  clothed  in  garments  made  white  by 
"  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  Through  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  founded  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  believers  are  made 
*  Rev.  i.  5.  f  ffyopatiaS  rcJ  OEM,  v.  9. 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  355 

subjects  and  priests  therein.  The  designation  of  Christ 
as  "  the  Lamb  "  (TO  apviov},  occurring  twenty-nine  times 
in  the  course  of  the  book,  was  probably  derived  from 
Isaiah  liii.  7,  where  the  pious  remnant  of  the  people  are 
represented  as  suffering  for  the  nation,  and  as  brought 
like  a  "  lamb  to  the  slaughter."  For  Christ  himself  his 
death  is  represented  as  the  means  through  which  he 
gained  glory  and  distinction.  He  is  accounted  worthy 
to  open  the  seals  of  the  book  because  he  was  "  slain."* 
This  denotes  a  distinct  opposition  to  the  later  Johannine 
•doctrine  according  to  which  the  glory  of  Christ  belonged 
to  him  originally,  was  had  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was,  and  hence  was  not  acquired  by  his  earthly  suf- 
fering. In  his  exaltation  he  shares  the  divine  power,  sits 
with  the  Father  on  His  Throne,  is  Lord  of  lords  and 
King  of  kings,  Lord  of  the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  has  the 
keys  of  death  and  the  underworld. f  The  emphasis 
placed  on  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  Pauline,  but  here 
as  in  the  matter  of  his  death  there  is  no  definite  appro- 
priation of  the  fact  for  the  founding  of  a  soteriological 
doctrine.  The  book  was  not  written  by  a  Christian  philo- 
sopher like  Paul.  Its  prominent  theme  is  the  exaltation 
of  Christ  and  the  victory  which  he  was  to  win.  After  the 
war  in  heaven  which  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  Satan, 
the  conflict  carried  on  with  him  by  "  the  brethren  "  on 
the  earth  terminates  in  their  victory  "  because  of  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb." 

With  respect  to  man's  part  in  salvation  the  Revelation 
represents  the  Old-Testament  point  of  view.  On  the 
human  side  the  essence  of  religion  is  the  keeping  of  the 
commandments  of  God.  Everything  depends  upon 
"  works  "  (epyot) :  "  Blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the 

*  Rev.  v.  9,  12.  f  Rev.  i.  18,  iii.  21,  xvii.  14,  xix.  16. 


356       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Lord,  and  their  works  follow  them,"  i.  e.,  determine  their 
future  condition.  The  dead  are  judged  according  to  their 
works,  and  a  judgment  book  is  kept  in  which  these  are 
recorded.  The  Church  in  Sardis  is  censured  because  its 
"works  have  not  been  found  perfect  before  God."' 
There  is  no  trace  in  the  book  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith.  In  accordance  with  the  stress  of 
the  time  the  practical  rather  than  the  dogmatic  aspect  of 
faith  is  made  prominent.  The  faith  in  Jesus  (//  TIIGTIS 
'IrjGov)  which  is  commended  and  enjoined  is  fidelity  to- 
the  confession  of  him  so  important  amid  the  trials  of  the 
hour.  Hence  faith  is  associated  with  love,  ministry,  and 
patience,  and  even  included  among  the  epya.  f  The  chief 
requirements  which  are  made  of  Christians  are  not  to  deny 
Jesus,  to  keep  his  testimony,  hold  fast  his  word,  to  hold 
fast  that  which  they  have,  not  to  love  their  lives,  even  to 
death,  and  not  to  suffer  their  crown  to  be  taken  from 
them.  ^  The  Christian's  life  is  a  conflict,  and  especially 
honored  are  the  martyrs,  who  shall  be  clothed  in  white, 
"  as  an  evidence  of  the  justice  of  their  cause  and  of  the 
divine  approval." 

The  Revelation  represents  in  general  rather  the  Jewish- 
Christian  than  the  Pauline  apprehension  of  the  mission  of 
Christianity.  In  the  enumeration  of  the  host  of  those 
who  had  been  "  redeemed  "  by  the  blood  of  Christ  are 
included  "  men  out  of  every  tribe  and  tongue  and 
people,"  §  but  gentiles  are  not  recognized  as  having  equal 
privileges  and  rights  with  Jews  as  denizens  of  the  new 
Jerusalem.  The  preeminence  of  Israel  is  expressed  in 

*  Rev.  iii.  2. 

f   Rev.  ii.  19,  xiv.  12. 

\  Rev.  ii.  13,  25,  iii.  8,  vi.  9,  xii.  II,  17. 

§  Rev.  v.  9,   vii.  9. 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  357 

the  declaration  that  the  one  hundred  and  forty-four 
thousand  who  are  "  sealed  "  are  from  the  twelve  tribes, 
and  on  the  twelve  gates  of  the  new  Jerusalem  are  in- 
scribed the  names  of  these  tribes.  Censure  is,  indeed, 
not  spared  for  those  "who  say  they  are  Jews  and  are  not, 
but  are  a  synagogue  of  Satan,"  *  and  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ  is  represented  as  avenged  upon  Jerusalem,  which 
for  this  crime  is  called  spiritually  Sodom  and  Egypt  ;f 
yet  only  a  tenth  part  of  the  city  is  destroyed,  and  only 
seven  thousand  of  the  inhabitants  perish,  while  "  the  rest 
become  afraid,  and  give  glory  to  the  God  of  heaven.";): 
It  is  significant  that  the  temple  is  spared,  and  that  the 
thousand  years'  reign  has  its  central  point  in  the  beloved 
•city.  "The  faith  of  the  book  may  be  called  Jewish- 
Christian  ;  but  it  is  neither  the  Jewish  Christianity  of 
the  primitive  Church  nor  its  later  Ebionitism.  It  distin- 
guishes itself  from  the  former  by  the  wider  recognition  of 
gentile  Christianity  as  well  as  by  the  developed  doctrine 
of  the  atoning  death  of  Jesus  and  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  same  in  its  total  significance  for  salvation.  It  is  still 
farther  removed  from  that  later  legal  and  exclusive  Juda- 
ism. The  requirement  of  circumcision  is  throughout 
foreign  to  and  irreconcilable  with  its  spirit."  § 

The  book  contains  a  mythology  whose  fantastic  features 
find  ample  room  for  expression  in  its  apocalyptic  purpose. 
Angels  play  a  prominent  part  in  the  drama  whose  theatre 
is  the  celestial  and  terrestial  regions  and  the  underworld. 
An  angel  stands  in  the  sun  ;  there  is  an  angel  of  the  waters  ; 

one  ascends  from  the  East ;  one  stands  on  the  sea ;  there 

i 

*  Rev.  ii.  9,  iii.  9. 

\  Rev.  xi.  8. 

\  Rev.  xi.  13. 

§  Weizsacker,  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter,  2te  Aufl.  p.  525. 


358        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

is  an  angel  of  the  bottomless  pit ;  hosts  of  them  stand 
around  the  throne  of  God  ;  four  angels  stand  on  the  four 
corners  of  the  earth  ;  and  there  are  seven  angels  with 
trumpets  who  announce  the  seven  plagues.*  Angels  rule 
over  the  elements  and  execute  the  divine  penal  judg- 
ments. Michael  and  his  angelic  hosts  fight  against  the 
dragon  and  his  angels,  and  cast  them  out  of  heaven.  The 
great  mythologic  adversary  of  the  Church,  Satan,  the 
Devil,  the  dragon,  the  serpent,  the  great  red  dragon,  plays 
an  important  role  in  this  vivid  apocalypse.  A  spiritual 
opponent  of  goodness,  he  bears  a  resemblance  to  "  the 
prince  of  this  world  "  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  there  is 
presented  the  Old-Testament  idea  of  him  as  the  "  accuser  " 
of  the  saints  before  God.  After  being  cast  out  of  heaven 
by  the  celestial  generalissimo,  Michael,  he  begins  his 
ravages  upon  the  earth  with  bitter  ferocity,  knowing  that 
"he  hath  but  a  short  time."  The  opposition  and  the 
persecutions  to  which  the  Christians  are  exposed  are 
instigated  by  him  whose  function  it  is  to  "  deceive  the 
whole  world."  The  false  teachers  are  they  who  "  know 
the  depths  of  Satan."  After  being  bound  and  sealed  in 
"  the  abyss "  for  a  thousand  years,  he  is  released  to 
deceive  the  nations,  but  is  overcome  in  a  great  cosmic 
conflict,  and  with  the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  is  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone  to  be  "  tormented  day 
and  night  for  ever  and  ever."f 

As  in  i  John  ii.  18  the  coming  of  Antichrist  immediately 
precedes  the  near  Parousia  or  the  last  days,  so  in  the 
Revelation  the  appearance  of  the  great  antagonist  Satan 
announces  the  close  of  the  apocalyptic  drama.  After  a 
series  of  plagues,  heaven  opens,  and  the  "  Logos  of  God " 

*  Rev.  vii.  2,  viii.  2,  ix.  II,  x.  5,  xvi.  5,  xix.  17. 

f  Rev.  ii.  10,  13,  24,  xii,  3,  9,  10,  12,  17,  xiii.  2,  4,  n,  xvi.  3,  xx.  3,  icx 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYPTIC.  359 

descends,  his  eyes  a  flame  of  fire,  on  his  head  many 
diadems,  and  in  his  mouth  a  sharp  sword,  and  makes  war 
with  Antichrist  and  his  prophet.  Both  are  "  cast  alive 
into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,"  Satan  is  bound  for  a 
thousand  years,  and  the  host  of  allied  enemies  are  slain, 
"  and  all  the  birds  are  glutted  with  their  flesh."  Then 
are  raised  at  "  the  first  resurrection  "  those  beheaded  on 
account  of  the  testimony  to  Jesus,"  the  martyrs,  the  mar- 
riage-supper of  the  Lamb  and  his  bride  begins,' and  they 
reign  with  Christ  in  Jerusalem  a  thousand  years.*  At 
the  end  of  this  millennial  period  Satan,  who  has  been 
released,  gathers  his  hosts  and  "  encompasses  the  camp  of 
the  saints  and  the  beloved  city ; "  but  "  fire  comes  down 
out  of  heaven  and  devours  them."  The  Devil,  the  great 
deceiver,  is  cast  into  the  burning  lake  for  endless  torment. 
Now,  seated  on  "  a  great  white  throne,"  God  begins  the 
final  judgment.  The  dead  great  and  small  appear,  those 
who  had  "  part  in  the  first  resurrection  "  apparently  ex- 
cepted,  and  they  are  judged  "  according  to  their  works  " 
out  of  the  things  written  in  the  books.  The  sea  and 
hades  give  up  their  dead,  so  that  the  judgment  is 
general.  Death  and  hades  are  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire, 
which  receives  also  all  whose  names  are  "  not  written  in 
the  book  of  life."  f  Then  are  created  "  a  new  heaven  and 
a  new  earth,"  and  the  new  Jerusalem  comes  down  "out 
of  heaven  from  God."  The  new  earth  becomes  the 
theatre  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  whose  "  tabernacle  is  with 
men,  and  He  will  dwell  with  them.  Tears  shall  be  wiped 
from  the  eyes  of  the  blessed,  and  "death  shall  be  no 
more."  \ 

*  Rev.  xix.  7,  9,  u,  12,  19,  20,  21,  xx.  4,  5,  9. 
f  Rev.  xx.  n,  15.      Cf.  Enoch  xc.  26. 
\  Rev.  xxi.  1-5. 


360       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

This  book  considered  in  relation  to  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
must  be  regarded  as  such  a  transformation  of  it  as  would 
be  effected  in  an  age  of  hardship  and  violence  by  men 
who  did  not  comprehend  its  precepts  of  loving-kindness 
and  forgiveness.  The  vindictive  passions  of  men  whose 
patience  is  exhausted  amid  the  tribulations  of  the  time 
are  ascribed  to  the  Deity.  The  souls  of  martyrs  in  the 
cause  of  him  who  prayed  on  the  cross  for  the  forgiveness 
of  his  executioners  cry  out  in  heaven  for  vengeance  on 
"  those  who  dwell  on  the  earth."*  The  terrible  drama 
of  the  last  things  unfolds  its  apocalyptic  horrors  in  relent- 
less judgment  executed  in  destruction,  flames,  and  blood- 
shed. With  respect  to  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  no  stronger  contrast  can  be  conceived  than  that 
between  the  catastrophes  herein  delineated  and  Jesus' 
parables  of  the  leaven  and  the  grain  of  mustard.  It  is 
the  contrast  between  the  fretful  impatience  of  the  narrow 
theocratic  intelligence  and  the  calm  patience  of  the  far- 
seeing  religious  genius.  It  were  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  writer  of  these  visions  was  not  in  earnest 
but  was  merely  amusing  himself  with  figures  of  speech. 
What  he  depicted  he  and  his  contemporaries  expected  to 
see  realized — Rome  annihilated,  Jerusalem  saved,  the 
Messiah  coming  in  his  "  wrath  "  so  that  all  should  see 
him,  even  "  they  who  had  pierced  him."  The  enemies  of 
the  good  cause  had  shed  the  blood  of  saints  and  prophets, 
and  God  would  give  them  blood  to  drink,  f  One  may, 
indeed,  with  Hausrath  find  in  the  book  "  religious  ground- 
thoughts  "  of  importance,  such  as  that  "  worldly  power, 
though  stronger  than  Rome,  can  at  the  most  only  reach 
the  outer  fore-court,  never  the  holy  kernel  of  religion 
itself,  and  that  the  good,  though  crucified  and  buried, 

*  Rev.  vi.  10.  f  Rev.  xvi.  6. 


JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  APOCALYYTIC.  361 

must  finally  alone  possess  the  kingdom/'  *  but  one  is 
hardly  rewarded  by  finding  these  for  a  search  through 
this  lurid  apocalypse,  since  one  must  come  upon  many 
ideas  in  it  which  are  revolting  to  a  humane  sensibility  and 
opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  gospel. 

*  Art.  "  Apokalypse"  in  Schenkel's  Bible- Lexicon,  i.  p.  164. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE   GOSPEL  AND   THEOLOGY. 

THE  foregoing  study  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  and  of 
the  principal  interpretations  which  it  underwent 
in  the  New  Testament  discloses  facts  of  great  significance 
to  all  who  are  interested  in  the  Christian  religion  and 
Christian  theology.  The  several  writings  which  have 
been  passed  under  review  are  seen  to  constitute  a  theo- 
logical and  religious  literature  having  in  the  personality 
and  teaching  of  Jesus  a  bond  of  unity  and  in  the  person- 
alities and  environments  of  their  writers  the  conditions  of 
marked  diversities.  Precisely  such  phenomena  are  pre- 
sented as  the  student  of  history  would  expect  to  see 
emerge  from  the  promulgation  of  great  truths  by  a  com- 
manding genius  and  their  advocacy  by  men  of  different 
capacities,  temperaments,  and  interests.  The  conclusion 
which  this  study  compels  is  that  the  different  phases  of 
doctrine  in  the  New  Testament  furnish  an  example  of 
development  out  of  simple  into  complex  and  intensified 
forms  and  not  merely  a  relation  of  the  juxtaposition  of 
diverse  apprehensions  or  interpretations.  The  develop- 
ment was  determined  partly  by  varying  exigencies, 
circumstances,  and  points  of  view,  and  partly  by  the 
antecedents,  presuppositions,  and  tendencies  of  the  men 
who  occupied  themselves  with  the  great  central  theme. 
We  have  seen  that  the  synoptic  Gospels  contain  fragmen- 
tary reports  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  they  had  been 

362 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  363 

preserved  in  antecedent  writings  and  in  the  oral  tradition 
of  his  followers  and  their  successors.     From  these  records 
it  is  doubtless  possible  to   construct   a  tolerably  correct 
portrait  of  the  personality  of  the   great  Teacher  and  an 
account  of  his  principal  teachings  which  is  in  the  main 
true.     In  them  we  find  that    the  doctrines  which  may 
without  doubt  be  attributed  to  him   are  few  and  simple. 
He  accepted  from  the  religion  in  which  he  had  been 
reared  the  doctrine  of  one  God,  the  paternal  attributes  of 
whose  nature  he  so  exalted  and  illustrated  out  of  his  own 
religious  intuitions  and  experience  that  the  divine  father- 
hood may  be  regarded  as  one  of  his  original  contributions 
to  theology  by  means  of  which  an  impulse  and  inspiration 
of  inappreciable  moment  have  been  given  to  the  spiritual 
life  of   men.      From    the    current    Jewish    doctrines    he 
adopted  that  of  the  existence  of  the  human  soul  after 
death,  though  he  taught  nothing  definite  as  to  the  details 
and  conditions  of  that  existence.     The  chief  stress  of  his 
teaching  was  placed  upon  the  proclamation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,    or  the  new  order  of  ethical-spiritual  life, 
and  the  conditions  of  entering  it,  and  upon  righteousness, 
which    he    represented    in    the    manner    of  the  ancient 
prophets  as  attainable  by  men  through  obedience  to  God. 
Though  "  he  spoke  as  one  having  authority,"  he  claimed 
no  divine  rank,  and  thrust  aside  the  dangerous  crown  of 
Jewish  Messiahship.     He  did  not  appeal  to  mighty  works 
for  an  authentication  of  his  teachings,  but  left  these  to 
verify  themselves  in  the  experience  of  believers  and  in 
the  transformation  of  mankind  which  as  a  "  leaven  "  they 
were  destined   to  effect.     All   that   is  highest  in  human 
ethical  achievement,  in  love,  purity,    and  compassion  ;  all 
that  is  greatest  in  human  character,  in  courage,   fidelity, 
and  consecration ;  and  all  that  is  most  blessed  in  religious 


364       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

experience,  found  exemplification  in  his  life.  A  spotless 
Rabbi,  it  was  not  without  good  reason  that  his  followers 
called  him  Master,  and  it  has  been  with  a  just  recognition 
of  his  preeminence  that  the  purest  souls  in  the  highest 
civilizations  since  his  time  have  reverenced  him  as  spiritual 
Lord. 

However  desirable  it  may  be  thought  to  be  that  a 
faultless  record  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  the  great 
Master  should  have  been  made  and  handed  down  uncor- 
rupted,  it  is  evident  that  such  an  achievement  would  have 
been  impossible  without  a  miraculous  intervention.  In 
the  case  of  such  an  intervention  we  should  not  have  had 
an  historical  Christianity,  but  a  Christianity  in  which  the 
laws  of  historical  development  would  be  set  aside.  Now, 
not  only  do  all  the  presumptions  in  the  case  rest  against 
an  hypothesis  of  this  kind,  but  the  oldest  Gospels,  the 
synoptics,  present  precisely  the  sort  of  phenomena  which 
would  be  expected  in  an  historical  course  of  affairs  in 
writings  composed  from  forty  to  seventy  years  after  the 
events  recorded.  With  all  the  conditions  present  of  a 
transformation  of  the  facts  of  the  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus  it  were  a  marvel  if  such  a  transformation  should 
not  be  made.  Accordingly,  the  aureole  of  wonder 
is  suspended  over  the  cradle  of  the  infant  Saviour. 
A  supernatural  messenger  announces  to  the  trembling 
virgin  the  mystery  of  a  conception  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  the  sympathy  of  heaven  with  the  beginnings  of  the 
great  earthly  drama  of  redemption  finds  a  voice  in  a  shout 
of  a  choir  of  angels,  who  appear  to  frightened  shepherds 
amidst  the  shining  "  glory  of  the  Lord."  Inward  spiritual 
facts  and  experiences  are  expressed  in  terms  of  external 
phenomena  and  personal  powers.  The  illumination  of 
the  soul  of  Jesus  by  the  spirit  of  truth  is  recorded  as  the 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  365 

descent  of  a  visible  dove  and  an  audible  voice  from  the 
upper  air,  and  the  moral  conflict  of  opposing  motives  in 
his  mind  becomes  a  personal  conflict  with  Satan  in  the 
desert,  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  on  a  moun- 
tain-top before  a  magical  panorama  of  "  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  and  their  glory."  Material  wonders  attest  the 
spiritual  supremacy  of  the  great  Rabbi  throughout  his 
life,  and  at  his  death  the  earth  is  shaken,  the  veil  of  the 
temple  is  rent  in  twain,  and  darkness  envelops  the 
affrighted  land.  The  victory  of  his  spirit  over  death  finds 
a  material  expression  in  the  open  grave,  the  abandoned 
burial-vestments,  and  a  bodily  manifestation,  while  the 
saints  who  burst  their  cerements  and  come  forth  into  the 
holy  city  herald  him  as  the  first  fruits  of  the  resurrection 
of  "the  bodies  of  the  holy  men  who  slept."  Having 
incorporated  into  itself  the  ascension  of  Jesus  into  heaven, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  tradition  of  his  life  and 
teachings  which  took  form  among  Jewish  Christians,  who 
believed  that  in  declaring  himself  to  be  a  spiritual  Mes- 
siah he  accepted  the  crown  of  the  son  of  David,  did  not 
leave  him  in  the  celestial  regions,  but  developed  the 
doctrine  of  his  early  return  to  the  earth.  A  Jewish-Mes- 
sianic mission  could  find  no  fulfilment  in  the  life  of  a 
homeless  teacher  ending  in  an  ignominious  death.  Hence 
the  tradition  of  the  Messiah  must  not  only  give  expres- 
sion to  the  feverish  hope  of  an  advent  in  glory  which 
should  realize  the  Messianic  dream,  but  must  also  contain 
a  glowing  prophecy  of  it  in  the  very  words  of  the  Master. 
Accordingly,  he  is  made  to  declare  that  before  his  gener- 
ation should  pass  away  he  would  come  on  the  clouds  of 
heaven  attended  by  "  his  holy  angels,"  and  summon  the 
nations  to  judgment  before  an  earthly  "  throne  of  glory," 
awarding  to  men  eternal  life  or  eternal  punishment  ac- 


366        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

cording  to  the  treatment  which  they  should  have  accorded 
to  his  "  brethren."  It  is  not  surprising  that  biographies 
of  Jesus  written  from  the  Messianic  point  of  view  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  tradition  should  present  a  mingling  of 
incongruous  elements  ;  that  sayings  whose  profound  spirit- 
uality mark  them  as  genuine  words  of  the  great  Teacher 
should  be  found  not  far  removed  from  impracticable 
apocalyptic  visions ;  that  declarations  of  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  kingdom  of  God  should  stand  in  con- 
nection with  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  passages  from 
the  Old  Testament  quoted  and  distorted  to  serve  as  evi- 
dences of  the  unspiritual  and  temporal  mission  of  Christ ; 
and  that  along  with  the  lofty  morality  which  rebuked  the 
worldly  ambition  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  for  places  of 
honor  in  the  "  kingdom  "  for  which  they  were  hoping  with 
the  words:  "Ye  will  indeed  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink 
and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with,"  should  be  found  the  illusive  promise  to  the  twelve 
apostles  that,  "  in  the  renovation  when  the  Son  of  Man 
sitteth  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  who  have  followed 
me  shall  also  yourselves  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  It  is  evident  that  the  interest 
and  expectation  which  set  over  against  each  other  in  the 
evangelical  tradition  the  teaching  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  had  already  come  in  the  mission  of  its  spiritual  Mes- 
siah, and  the  apocalyptic  advent  and  the  "  throne  of 
glory,"  might  very  well  place  side  by  side  the  pure 
morality  which  taught  the  doing  of  good  without  hope  of 
return,  and  the  promise  to  calculating  self-interest  of  a 
hundred-fold  in  the  time  that  now  is,  houses,  lands,  etc., 
and  in  the  age  to  come  everlasting  life. 

The  religion  of  Jesus,  which  does  not  admit  of  a  pre- 
cise formulation,  but  the  leading  features  of  which  were  a 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  367 

sense  of  men's  relation  of  dependence  upon  and  responsi- 
bility to  God  as  a  righteous  Father,  a  recognition  of  their 
capacity  to  hold  communion  with  Him  through  their 
spiritual  nature  over  which  death  has  no  power,  and  a 
practical  principle  of  brotherhood  which  binds  men  to 
mutual  helpfulness  and  love,  received  from  his  Jewish- 
Christian  followers  the  Messianic-apocalyptic  appendage 
which  occupies  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  synoptic  Gos- 
pels, determining  to  a  considerable  degree  their  coloring 
of  his  biography.  The  predominant  Messianic  interest  of 
Jewish  Christianity  directed  attention  chiefly  to  the  future 
as  the  theatre  of  the  exaltation  of  Christ,  and  determined 
the  apocalyptic  features  of  its  interpretation.  But  Paul, 
in  whom  the  speculative  tendency  was  stronger  than  hope 
and  anticipation,  looked  backward  as  well  as  forward  in 
his  idealization  of  Christ,  and  conceived  a  Christology 
whose  celestial  point  of  departure  required  a  meta- 
physical construction.  To  him  "  the  man  Christ  Jesus," 
who  was  "  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh,"  was  not  simply  the  man  of  the  Jewish-Christian 
synoptic  tradition,  but  "the  man  from  heaven,"  the  "sec- 
ond Adam."  the  spiritual  head  and  representative  of  the 
human  race.  The  Messiahship  which  he  conceived  was  a 
spiritualized  and  transfigured  Messiahship,  to  which  were 
wanting  the  original  national  features  of  the  Jewish-Chris- 
tian conception  of  Messiah.  The  Christ,  who  was  not 
in  his  thought  to  be  the  restorer  of  the  political  order  of 
Israel,  but  the  restorer  of  the  spiritual  order  of  mankind, 
was  only  "  according  to  the  flesh  "  of  the  seed  of  David. 
As  the  "anointed"  not  of  a  people,  but  of  the  human 
race,  he  was  the  preexistent  heavenly  man,  the  "  image 
of  God,"  and  the  agent  of  the  creation.  The  Pauline 
Christology  is  accordingly  symmetrically  conceived  under 


368        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

the  relation  of  means  to  end.  Jesus,  regarding  himself  as 
the  teacher  of  men  and  their  Saviour  through  his  teachings 
and  example,  consistently  committed  the  fortune  of  his 
cause  to  the  power  of  his  word  and  his  life,  and  prophesied 
with  sublime  confidence  that  the  kingdom  of  God  would 
become  from  a  little  "  leaven "  a  world-transforming 
agency.  Taking  his  place  in  the  current  of  human  affairs 
as  an  historical  force,  he  trusted  in  himself  as  such,  and 
did  not  connect  the  result  of  his  mission  with  a  meta- 
physical celestial  origin  of  his  person.  But  Paul,  the 
centre  of  whose  "  gospel  "  was  not  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Jesus,  but  his  death  and  resurrection,  conceiving  the 
end  of  the  Saviour's  mission  to  be  the  abolition  by  his  sac- 
rifice of  the  "  curse  of  the  law  "  for  all  men,  a  great  act  of 
atonement  which  should  liberate  the  world  from  bondage, 
also  consistently  took  his  departure  in  constructing  his 
Christology  from  no  mere  historical  personality,  but  from 
the  representative  spiritual  Adam,  the  man  from  heaven. 
This  transformation  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  did  not, 
however,  stop  with  the  construction  of  a  new  Christology, 
but  reached  its  height  in  a  doctrine  of  salvation  which  was 
as  different  from  that  of  Jesus  as  its  theory  of  his  person 
was  from  his  teaching  regarding  himself.  Jesus,  who  knew 
of  no  other  foundation  for  a  character  than  that  which  is 
laid  in  hearing  and  doing  his  words,  who  taught  nothing 
of  bearing  "  the  curse  of  the  law  "  in  his  death,  of  his  own 
satisfaction  of  the  divine  righteousness  for  the  world,  of 
a  representative  atonement,  and  of  a  justification  of  men 
which  should  be  "  accounted  "  to  them  through  their  faith 
in  him,  did  not  have  in  view  the  abolition  of  the  law,  but 
expressly  declared  that  he  came  to  fulfil  it.  He  would 
have  men  attain  righteousness,  as  he  attained  it,  by  a 
trusting,  worshipful  obedience,  by  spiritual  communion 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  369 

with  the  Father,  and  by  nurturing  the  sentiment  of 
brotherly  love.  This  easy  yoke  and  light  burden  he  in- 
vited men  to  assume,  and  believed  in  their  spiritual 
capacity  to  achieve  the  task  through  the  quickening  of 
his  word  and  his  life.  On  the  contrary,  Paul's  theory  of 
salvation  was  grounded  upon  a  distrust  of  man's  ability, 
took  no  account  of  the  teachings  and  life  of  Jesus,  and 
was  constructed  with  reference  to  a  theoretical,  absolute 
consummation,  a  complete  satisfaction  of  the  law,  a  clear- 
ing off  once  for  all  of  its  claims  by  a  final  settlement  of 
its  account,  which  partake  more  of  magic  than  of  rational 
practicability.  The  idea  of  a  righteousness  which  is  im- 
puted to  men  through  faith  by  reason  of  the  satisfaction 
of  the  requirements  of  the  law  by  one  who  has  "  redeemed 
them  from  its  curse/'  and  been  "  made  a  curse"  for  them, 
is  foreign  to  the  thought  of  Jesus,  and  altogether  incom- 
patible with  his  conception  of  the  establishment  of 
right  relations  between  man  and  God.  The  teaching 
that  the  Father  demands  of  the  wayward  son  only  repent- 
ance and  return,  that  to  enter  the  kingdom  one  must  do 
the  will  of  God  and  renounce  the  worldly  possessions 
which  encumber  the  spirit,  that  the  great  invitation  must 
be  accepted  with  joyful  alacrity  though  the  loved  ones  are 
left  without  adieu,  and  that  the  coming  after  him  or  the 
attainment  of  his  spiritual*  altitude  is  simply  to  take  up 
the  cross  of  sacrifice  and  service  and  follow  him,  could 
not  be  more  radically  transformed  than  it  was  in  the  con- 
struction of  this  metaphysical  scheme  of  salvation. 

Paul  with  all  his  greatness  was  not,  however,  quite 
superior  to  the  apocalpytic  expectations  of  his  age  and 
race,  and  his  conception  of  the  consummation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  included  a  manifestation  of  the  Messiah 
from  heaven,  and  a  "judgment-seat  of  Christ."  But  in 


370       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

his  doctrine  of  the  last  things  the  original  Jewish-Christian 
Messianism  underwent  a  transformation  by  the  addition 
of  new  and  strange  features.  In  the  synoptic  account  of 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  there  is  no  mention  or  inti- 
mation of  a  resurrection,  and  the  "  throne  "  of  the  Son 
of  Man  is  established  on  the  earth  for  the  judgment  of 
"all  nations."  On  the  contrary,  the  Pauline  Christian 
apocalypse  is  intimately  connected  with  the  apostle's 
theory  of  salvation.  To  be  saved  was  in  his  thought  to 
become  a  sharer  in  the  glory  and  life  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  and  to  reign  with  Christ  at  his  coming.  This 
good  fortune  was  to  be  that  of  the  believers  in  Christ, 
both  those  who  had  "  fallen  asleep,"  and  those  who  should 
be  "  alive  "  and  "  remain  "  at  the  Parousia.  The  former 
would  be  "  raised  incorruptible,"  and  the  latter  would  be 
"  changed."  By  reason  of  the  Spirit  dwelling  in  them  of 
Him  who  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  their  mortal 
bodies  would  be  quickened,  and,  clothed  upon  with 
bodies  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  "  body  of  glory,"  they 
would  all  enter  upon  the  blessedness  of  being  "  forever 
with  the  Lord."  This  Pauline  transformation  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  eschatology,  although  including  the  ex- 
pectation of  an  immediate  and  catastrophic  consumma- 
tion and  such  materialistic  features  as  the  deliverance  of 
the  groaning  creation  from  "  the  bondage  of  corruption," 
to  which  it  was  supposed  to  have  been  subjected  by  the 
sin  of  Adam,  and  the  subjection  of  the  Messiah's  "  ene- 
mies," was  on  the  whole  a  more  spiritual  apprehension  of 
the  apocalyptic  end  than  the  latter.  Among  its  charac- 
teristic traits  were  a  spiritualizing  of  the  Jewish  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  a  relating  of  the  inward, 
spiritual  transformation  through  faith  to  the  resurrection 
apprehended  as  a  clothing  upon  of  the  soul  with  an  in- 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  3/1 

corruptible  corporeity  by  reason  of  the  indwelling  Spirit, 
an  ingathering  of  "  the  fulness  of  the  gentiles,"  and  a 
hope  of  the  salvation  of  the  beloved  and  much  yearned- 
for  "  brethren  according  to  the  flesh."  The  apostle's 
grounds  for  believing  in  the  consummation  of  so  hopeful 
a  soteriology  within  the  brief  time  which  remained  before 
the  hastening  Parousia  are  not  apparent,  and  there  are 
many  things  besides  in  his  eschatology  which  do  not  well 
accord  with  one  another;  but  his  doctrine  of  the  last 
days  agrees  with  his  exalted  conception  of  Christ  as  the 
divine  man  from  heaven  and  the  universal  spiritual  Mes- 
siah, and  with  his  idea  of  the  transforming  Spirit  which 
touches  even  the  mortal  body  with  its  life-giving  efficacy. 
It  is  distinguished  by  a  profundity  and  a  noble  human- 
ness  and  optimism  which  are  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
externality  and  harshness  of  the  synoptic  apocalypse. 

How  profoundly  the  person  of  Christ  impressed  the 
early  believers  in  him  is  apparent  in  the  writings  belong- 
ing to  the  school  of  Paul  which  have  been  designated  as 
deutero-Pauline.  The  transformation  of  Paulinism  by  its 
friends  took  two  general  directions :  a  further  exaltation 
of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  a  departure  from  the  distinc- 
tive teachings  of  the  apostle  regarding  salvation.  In  the 
matter  of  Christology  conceptions  were  introduced  from 
different  points  of  view  which  were  not  so  much  in  oppo- 
sition to  those  of  Paul  as  in  some  degree  foreign  to  his 
thought ;  while  the  succeeding  soteriology  was  character- 
ized by  a  quiet  dropping  out  of  his  fundamental  doctrines 
and  a  tendency  to  return  to  the  original  Christian  idea  of 
the  establishment  of  right  relations  between  man  and 
God.  The  influence  of  Alexandrian  ideas  becomes  un- 
mistakably apparent,  and  the  Christology  is  so  far  re- 
moved from  that  of  the  synoptic  Gospels  that  the  two 


3/2        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

different  types  of  conceptions  of  Jesus  originating  at 
nearly  the  same  time  furnish  a  problem  which  admits  of  no 
solution  from  the  dogmatic  point  of  view,  and  can  be  histo- 
rically explained  only  by  the  assumption  of  widely  diverg- 
ing interests,  influences,  and  environments.  The  influence 
of  the  original  tradition  of  Jesus  on  the  one  hand  and  a 
speculative  tendency  and  interest  on  the  other  may  be 
regarded  as  the  most  important  factors  in  the  two  series 
of  Christological  conceptions  and  as  determining  the 
value  of  the  one  in  relation  to  the  other.  Accordingly,  he 
who  conceived  of  himself  as  a  teacher  of  righteousness, 
the  spiritual  Messiah  of  the  ethical-religious  kingdom  of 
God,  the  Son  of  Man  by  reason  of  his  preeminent  and 
ideal  humanity,  and  who  was  thought  by  his  Jewish-Chris- 
tian followers  to  be  their  national  Messiah,  becomes  in 
this  speculative  Christology  the  metaphysical  Son  of  Godr 
"  the  high-priest  "  of  redemption,  "  the  brightness  "  of  the 
divine  glory,  "  the  express  image  "  of  the  being  of  Godr 
and  the  universal  providence  who  "  upholds  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power."  The  agency  of  Jesus  in  cre- 
ation, somewhat  vaguely  expressed  by  Paul,  is  expanded 
into  the  declarations  that  in  him  were  created  all  things 
in  heaven  and  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  thrones,  domin- 
ions, principalities,  and  powers,  that  he  is  before  all  things, 
the  end  of  all  creation,  and  that  "  in  him  all  things  sub- 
sist." As  the  Philonic  Logos  was  supposed  to  be  "filled 
entirely  with  the  immaterial  powers,"  so  Christ  is  conceived 
to  have  contained  in  himself  "  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head." With  the  disappearance  of  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  the  representative  office  of  Christ,  prominence  is  given 
to  the  ethical  significance  of  his  passion,  and  this  idea  is 
developed  in  connection  with  mythological  features, 
among  which  appear  the  "  bringing  to  naught  of  him  who- 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  373 

hath  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil,"  and  the 
disarming  of  the  orders  of  spiritual  beings,  "  principalities 
and  powers,"  which  are  made  "  a  public  show,"  and  "  led 
captive  in  triumph."  The  bond  of  the  law  which  they 
are  supposed  to  hold  against  sinful  men  is  "  nailed  to  the 
cross,"  so  that  by  means  of  the  great  sacrifice  the  demonic 
powers  are  put  to  confusion  and  overthrown.  The  prince 
of  the  mythologic  "  powers  of  the  air  "  no  longer  holds 
the  souls  of  the  faithful  in  his  relentless  grasp,  for  the 
great  Champion  has  gained  the  victory  in  the  cosmic  con- 
test which  was  waged  between  the  representatives  of  the 
two  mighty  cosmic  forces  of  good  and  evil. 

The  great  transformations  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  which 
appear  in  the  New  Testament  are  completed  in  a  dogmatic- 
mystical  writing  with  an  ostensible  biographical  purpose 
which  is  subordinated  to  a  distinctive  theological  tendency. 
The  fourth  Gospel  is  a  Gospel  of  subjective  reflection  upon 
an  idealized  object.  It  is  a  Christianized  Alexandrianism 
in  which  the  original  Christology  of  Jesus  now  disappears 
among  metaphysical  abstractions,  and  now  vaguely  emer- 
ges in  the  shadowy  outlines  of  a  speculative  biography. 
The  author  has  put  himself  into  his  work  to  such  a  degree 
as  to  render  its  subjectivity  its  distinguishing  characteristic 
among  the  Gospel-records.  The  person  of  Christ  is  the 
prominent  theme  which  is  accentuated  in  the  prologue,  in 
the  discourses,  and  in  the  narratives,  and  his  exaltation  is 
carried  to  the  verge  of  deification.  The  lowly  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  of  the  synoptic  tradition  here  becomes  the 
heaven-descended  Logos  who  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God,  and  was  God,  by  whom  the  world  was  made,  and 
through  whom  in  the  word  of  ancient  seers  a  dimly-appre- 
hended light  had  shone  upon  the  abyss  of  spiritual  dark- 
ness. Assuming  the  functions  of  a  mediator  in  the  dualism 


374        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

whose  antitheses  are  God  and  the  world,  light  and  dark- 
ness, the  divine  Logos  becomes  flesh,  and  takes  up  his 
abode  among  men  to  reveal  the  Father,  to  be  glorified  in 
his  death  and  resurrection,  and  to  return  and  assume  the 
glory  which  he  had  with  God  "  before  the  world  was." 
The  position  assigned  to  Jesus  in  this  Gospel  is  one  of 
cosmic  significance,  and  his  functions  transcend  the  limits 
of  Jewish  Messianism.  As  the  Logos  from  heaven,  come 
forth  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  as  a  world-mediator, 
descended  to  draw  to  himself  the  children  of  light  and  of 
God  from  all  nations,  as  the  light  of  the  world,  and  the 
beloved  divine  Son  of  God,  he  surpasses  in  rank  and  glory 
all  that  was  dreamed  or  foretold  of  the  splendor  and  do- 
minion of  the  scion  of  the  royal  house  of  David.  Greater 
than  the  Pauline  "  second  Adam,"  he  is  no  representative 
of  the  human  race  appointed  to  bear  the  curse  of  the  law 
and  to  be  made  in  his  passion  a  curse  for  men.  He  offers 
no  atoning  sacrifice,  and  his  death  is  not  an  humiliation, 
but  a  gateway  through  which  he  passes  out  of  the  dark- 
ened world  into  his  glory.  He  does  not  suffer  to  satisfy 
the  divine  righteousness,  and  does  not  buy  off  sinful  men 
by  the  payment  of  the  precious  ransom  of  his  blood,  but 
he  draws  them  to  himself  by  the  attraction  of  his  person- 
ality, and  to  those  who  receive  him  he  gives  "  power  to 
become  the  children  of  God."  The  Johannine  interpreta- 
tion of  the  gospel  in  discarding  or  ignoring  the  leading 
features  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  salvation  preserves  the 
spirit  of  the  original  teaching  of  Jesus  along  with  manifold 
variations  of  form  and  content.  Discharging  all  such  ex- 
ternalities as  the  bearing  of  "  the  curse  of  the  law  "  and 
the  effecting  of  a  representative  satisfaction  by  Christ  in 
his  death,  it  emphasizes  a  mystical,  inward  relation  of  men 
to  Jesus  which  is  consummated  through  a  faith  and  love 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  375 

by  which  the  receptive  soul  is  immediately  connected  with 
the  life-giving  personality  of  the  Son  of  God.  There  is 
no  roundabout  justification  or  accounting  righteous 
through  faith  by  reason  of  the  abrogation  of  a  burdensome 
"  law,"  but  he  who  believes  has  everlasting  life,  is  passed 
from  death  to  life,  and  though  dead  lives  again.  The  life- 
giving  Christ  directly  communicates  to  the  believer  a 
spiritual  principle  which  is  in  him  "  a  well  of  water  spring- 
ing up  to  everlasting  life."  Obedience,  far  from  being  an 
impossible  achievement,  is  the  prompt  and  glad  expression 
of  the  life  of  him  who  is  in  living  union  with  Christ.  He 
who  loves  him  will  keep  his  commandments.  "  Clean 
already  by  reason  of  the  word  "  which  Jesus  has  spoken, 
the  believer  has  only  to  abide  in  the  life-giving  vine  to 
"bear  much  fruit."  Yet  this  is  not  all.  The  believer  and 
Christ  are  merged  in  a  blessed  unity  of  everlasting  life. 
"  I  in  you,  and  ye  in  me  "  is  the  formula  of  the  mystic 
beatitude.  The  spiritual  blessedness  of  the  happy  children 
of  light  is  finally  consummated  in  the  practical  realization 
of  their  filial  relation  to  God.  They  become  related  to  the 
Father  as  the  divine  Son  is  in  a  higher  degree  related  to 
Him.  The  love  with  which  the  Father  loved  him  before 
the  world  was  is  now  bestowed  also  upon  those  who  have 
received  him,  and  not  only  the  Son,  but  the  Father  too, 
comes  and  abides  with  them.  For  the  believer  the  future 
is  full  of  promise.  The  blessed  Paraclete  will  come. 
Receiving  that  which  is  Christ's  he  will  communicate  it  to 
the  faithful,  leading  them  "into  all  truth."  Death  has 
no  power  over  those  who  have  been  united  with  Christ. 
He  will  "  raise  them  up  at  the  last  day,"  and  they  will 
"  come  forth  to  a  resurrection  of  life." 

The  various  types  of  teaching  which  are  contained   in 
the  New  Testament — the  essential  gospel  of  Jesus,  and  the 


3/6        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

Jewish-Christian,  the  Pauline,  the  deutero-Pauline,  the 
Johannine,  and  the  anti-Gnostic  apprehensions  of  Christian- 
ity— have  thus  far  been  considered  only  as  formal  differ- 
ences of  doctrine.  It  is  manifest  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
lies  at  the  basis  of  all  the  others,  and  that  it  stood  in  a  causal 
relation  to  them,  furnishing  partly  the  material  and  almost 
entirely  the  impulse  which  made  them  possible.  It  cannot 
but  occur,  however,  to  one  who  reflects  upon  the  subject, 
that  between  the  two  great  classes  into  which  the  New  Tes- 
tament may  be  divided — the  Gospel  and  its  interpretations 
and  transformations— there  exists  a  profounder  distinc- 
tion than  that  of  merely  formal  variations.  There  is  in 
fact  between  the  two  classes  a  distinction  according  to 
which,  while  the  several  members  of  the  second  class 
present  coordinate  differences,  the  two  classes  are  dis* 
tinguished  by  a  fundamental  difference  of  nature,  an  un- 
likeness  which  separates  them  "  by  the  whole  diameter  of 
being."  It  is  the  distinction  between  religion  as  experi- 
enced and  talked  about  by  one  who  was  spiritually  in 
touch  with  divine  realities  and  in  communion  with  God, 
and  the  accretions  which  become  attached  to  his  message 
and  his  story  when  these  are  committed  to  the  flood  of 
oral  tradition  ;  between  the  teacher  in  his  aloneness  and 
simple  greatness,  and  the  portraits  of  him  drawn  by  his 
own  and  the  immediately  succeeding  generations  ;  between 
a  God-allied  life  illustrating  a  divine  message,  and  human 
conceptions  and  opinions  of  both  determined  by  varying 
interests,  tendencies,  and  prejudices,  and  by  tribal  or  pro- 
vincial points  of  view ;  between  a  word  of  universal 
import  spoken  from  a  commanding  outlook  of  spiritual 
experience,  and  the  commentaries  of  the  schools  upon  it ; 
between  a  spiritual  Messiah  already  come  with  neither 
strife  nor  cry  in  an  inward  kingdom  of  righteousness  and 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  377 

love,  and  a  temporal  Messiah  about  to  come  on  the 
clouds  in  pomp  and  splendor  with  apocalyptic  "  thrones  " 
and  judgment ;  between  the  proclamation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  an  ethical  and  religious  practical  principle, 
and  interpretations  of  it  determined  by  the  feverish  Mes- 
sianic hopes  of  an  age  of  political  ferment  and  fanaticism  ; 
between  the  intuitions  of  an  inspired  Master  who  in  his 
purity  of  heart  beholds  God,  and  the  speculations  of  lesser 
men  who  grope  if  haply  they  may  find  Him ;  between 
realities  and  dreams ;  religion  and  theology ;  revelation 
and  apocalypse  ;  truth  and  half-truths  ;  between  the  clear- 
sighted vision  which  sees  what  is  real  in  man  and  God, 
and  the  turbid  reasoning  which  grasps  at  phantoms ;  be- 
tween the  self-consciousness  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  meta- 
physical Christologies ;  between  the  straight  way  to  God 
through  sacrifice  and  obedience,  and  abstract  and  mechani- 
cal schemes  of  redemption  ;  between  seeking  the  present 
kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness,  and  "  gazing  up 
into  heaven  "  to  discern  the  coming  kingdom — the  part 
of  one  neglecting  to  take  up  the  Master's  yoke  and  burden 
while  dreaming  dreams  of  "  the  last  things." 

The  importance  and  transcendent  worth  of  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  in  contrast  with  the  "  undivine  elements  "  with 
which  it  is  ordinarily  confused  are  evident  as  soon  as  it  is 
separated  from  these,  and  regarded  by  itself.  What  is 
regarded  as  Christianity  in  the  average  thought  of  men  is 
a  collection  of  theological  opinions  which  preponderate 
over  the  few  moral  and  religious  ideas  associated  with 
them.  Accordingly,  Christianity  and  the  religion  of  Jesus 
are  two  things  which  it  is  necessary  to  clear  thinking 
about  either  to  keep  distinct.  The  gospel  of  Jesus  is  a 
teaching  which  may  be  described  as  the  expression  of  his 
thought  and  experience  of  man's  relation  to  God  and  to 


THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

his  fellow-men,  or  of  conduct  in  the  widest  sense  of  the 
word.  The  importance  of  this  gospel  for  thought  is 
apparent  when  we  set  it  over  against  the  accretions  which, 
beginning  in  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have  seen,  have 
accumulated  during  its  history.  It  has  the  stimulus  and 
nurture  for  the  mind  which  always  accrue  to  it  from  deal- 
ing with  great  realities.  As  in  art,  so  in  morals  and 
religion,  the  artificial  degrades  and  enfeebles,  the  real  en- 
nobles and  strengthens  the  soul.  It  is  a  striking  evidence 
of  the  unequalled  greatness  of  Jesus  that  his  legacy  to 
mankind  contains  nothing  that  is  factitious.  He  has  left 
us  not  his  dreams,  but  his  experiences  ;  not  his  specula- 
tions, but  his  intuitive  judgments;  not  processes,  but 
verities  ;  not  a  theology,  but  a  religion.  The  great  verities 
composing  the  gospel  of  Jesus  have  an  inappreciable 
worth  to  the  mind  for  the  ends  of  spiritual  culture.  They 
are  fruitful  of  thought,  quicken  the  higher  emotions,  and 
furnish  great  moral  impulses.  They  establish  man's  faith 
in  himself,  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  order,  and  in  God. 
A  purifying  flame  of  aspiration  and  love  burns  in  the 
soul  which  receives  them.  Trust  in  them  produces  death- 
less hope  and  indomitable  courage.  They  enter  into  the 
structure  of  all  true  character,  and  constitute  the  vital 
principle  of  righteousness.  For  the  ends  of  spiritual 
development  one  truth  of  Jesus  exceeds  in  worth  all  the 
apocalypses  that  have  been  dreamed.  His  gospel,  con- 
trasted with  the  commentaries  and  speculations  upon  it 
which  are  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  is  as  the  per- 
manent to  the  transient,  as  the  divine  word  to  varying 
human  interpretations  of  it.  In  what  striking  contrast 
does  the  fruitfulness  of  the  one  stand  to  the  dreary  barren- 
ness of  the  other !  There  is  the  difference  between  them 
that  the  one  is  chiefly  a  religion,  and  the  other  chiefly  a 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  379 

variety  of  theologies.  The  spiritual  teacher  in  communion 
with  God  and  in  fellowship  with  men,  how  near  is  he  to 
us,  how  apprehensible  to  thought,  how  inspiring  as  an 
example  !  But  the  Messiah  on  the  clouds,  the  great  high- 
priest,  the  second  Adam,  the  preexistent  Logos,  what 
remoteness,  what  inacessibility,  what  suggestions  of  spirit- 
ual sterility,  do  these  terms  convey  !  The  real  Jesus  who 
goes  before  us  in  the  way  of  sacrifice  and  obedience  in- 
spires our  reverence  and  devotion,  and  as  we  follow  him 
we  become  aware  of  the  divine  presence.  But  the  apoca- 
lyptic and  metaphysical  Christs  stir  in  us  no  sentiment  of 
love  and  consecration,  no  fervor  of  discipleship,  and  only 
excite  wonder,  and  provoke  speculation.  Had  only  these 
latter  been  given,  there  would  have  been  no  disciples,  no 
martyrs,  and  no  Christian  Church.  Did  the  New  Testa- 
ment portray  only  these  Christs,  and  not  also  the  living 
Jesus,  it  were  a  dead  book. 

As  a  religion,  then,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  is  distinguished 
from  its  interpretations  and  transformations  in  the  New 
Testament  by  the  quality  of  verifiability.  The  only  veri- 
fication to  man  of  which  a  spiritual  truth  is  capable  lies 
in  its  appeal  to  his  intuitions  and  in  the  tests  which  his 
experience  gives  to  it.  It  can  be  confirmed  by  no  outward 
sign  which  may  herald  it,  and  by  no  miracle  which  may 
accompany  its  proclamation.  A  teacher  can  only  verify 
his  mission  from  God  by  the  divineness  which,  filling 
himseff  and  his  message,  awakens  an  immediate  response 
to  the  divine  truth  which  he  delivers  in  those  to  whom  he 
ministers,  and  leads  them  into  his  communion  with  the 
Highest.  An  outward  miracle,  if  wrought  and  historically 
confirmed,  has  no  significance  for  us  apart  from  the  teacher 
and  his  message.  These  must  be  verified  by  the  response 
which  our  nature  makes  to  them  before  the  other  can  have 


380        THE   GOSPEL   AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

aught  to  say  to  us,  except  to  tell  us  that  a  scene  of  wonder 
or  of  magic  has  been  enacted,  the  hidden  springs  of  which 
we  do  not  know.  Thus  the  shaken  mountain  and  the 
voice  from  heaven  become  belated  and  superfluous  wit- 
nesses to  a  divine  fact  already  authenticated.  Now,  the 
life  and  word  of  Jesus  have  in  themselves  precisely  this 
supreme  verification,  that  they  command  at  once  the 
reverent  assent  of  every  human  being  who  is  sufficiently 
developed  in  his  moral  and  religious  faculties  to  be  im- 
pressible by  them.  One  less  developed  a  voice  from  heaven 
might,  indeed,  arrest,  but  could  not  awaken  to  love  and 
worship.  The  difference  is  manifest  as  to  verification 
between  a  teaching  which  reveals  to  us  the  depths  and 
heights  of  our  being,  stirs  all  noble  impulses,  shames  every 
debasing  passion,  and  elicits  a  glad  response  from  the 
affections  and  the  will,  and  the  teaching  which  offers 
chiefly  imaginary  apocalypses,  speculative  Christologies, 
and  dreams  and  dramas  of  "  the  last  things.  "  As  to  the 
former,  we  know  that  it  is  true  because  its  power  and 
truth  are  revealed  in  our  experience,  and  by  it  we  are  led 
upward  from  strength  to  strength.  As  to  the  latter, 
it  awakens  no  response  in  us  except  one  of  wonder  or 
curiosity,  and,  since  it  leads  us  into  no  divine  experience, 
we  do  not  know  whether  he  who  brings  it  has  been  in 
touch  with  reality  or  has  dreamed  a  dream. 

The  distinction  here  indicated,  while  it  does  not  imply 
that  the  interpretations  of  the  gospel  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  throughout  worthless  for  religion,  and  does  not 
carry  a  denial  of  the  religious  fervor  and  devotion  of  Paul, 
the  religious  mysticism  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  the 
love-breathing  spirit  of  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  does 
necessarily  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  word  of  Jesus 
is  preeminently  the  one  revelation  contained  in  the  New 


THE    GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  381 

Testament.  While  it  might  be  hazardous  to  attempt  to 
draw  a  line  between  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  all  else  in 
the  New  Testament  which  should  definitely  and  rigidly 
separate  what  is  revealed  from  what  is  not  revealed,  yet  if  to 
the  gospel  apart  from  all  its  accretio-ns  are  applied  the  tests 
of  revelation,  it  will  be  found  distinctively  to  possess  the 
unique  character  of  a  disclosure  of  spiritual  verities.  Now, 
it  is  manifest  that  a  revelation  to  man  can  be  of  such 
things  alone  as  he  in  his  nature  and  environment  is  capable 
of  receiving.  In  no  proper  sense  of  the  word  can  he 
receive  other  truths  than  such  as  are  verifiable  to  him. 
Accordingly,  the  test  of  a  revelation  is  its  receptibility, 
or  its  verifiability,  or  simply  that  it  can  be  received,  that 
is,  appropriated,  and  authenticated  by  man.  Revealed 
truths,  then,  are  the  truths  which  are  intuitively  appre- 
hended and  made  known  by  an  intelligence  more  highly  en- 
dowed,  that  is,  developed,  than  those  intelligences  to  which 
he  communicates  them,  but  truths  which  the  latter  would 
have  been  able  eventually  to  discern  of  themselves.  To 
the  revelation  of  religious  truth  there  is  necessary  a  higher 
religiousness  in  the  revealer  than  those  possess  to  whom 
he  communicates  his  revelation.  He  sees  spiritual  real- 
ities and  relations  which  others  have  not  yet  seen.  By  reason 
of  nature,  genius,  or  inspiration — terms  which  may  not  be 
so  fundamentally  different  in  meaning  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed— he  stands  in  an  exceptional  relation  to  the  divine 
Spirit,  and  is  a  master  in  the  ethical-religious  realm.  What 
he  declares  is  what  he  knows  and  has  experienced,  not 
what  he  imagines  or  dreams  ;  and  his  declaration  becomes 
a  revelation  to  men  only  so  far  as  they  are  capable  of 
knowing  it  as  he  knows  it.  The  indispensable  relation 
between  the  organ  of  a  revelation  and  those  who  receive 
his  communication  is  that  of  likeness  of  faculty,  com- 


382        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

munity  of  nature.  No  revelation  of  visual  objects  can  be 
made  by  a  man  who  sees  to  a  man  born  blind.  We  may, 
then,  believe  that  there  exists  such  a  community  of 
nature  between  the  divine  Spirit  and  His  human  children 
that  to  a  pure  and  spiritual  soul  God  can  make  His 
presence  felt  in  blessed  experiences  and  in  an  illumination 
which  fills  the  being  of  the  seer;  but  "the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  "  could  be  revealed  only  to  another  Godhead. 
Between  having  a  spiritual  sense  of  God  as  Father — a 
manifestly  relative  term — and  fathoming  the  mystery  of 
the  absolute  divine  being  the  difference  is  immeasurable. 
If  it  has  pleased  God  to  place  within  the  reach  of  men  a 
knowledge  of  the  fact  of  their  future  existence,  it  is  only 
in  a  very  vague  and  general  way  that  they  have  appre- 
hended it.  Jesus  appears  rather  to  have  accepted  the 
current  belief  on  the  subject  than  to  have  made  it  a  capital 
point  in  his  teaching.  His  bodily  revival,  appearance  to 
the  eye  of  flesh,  and  mysterious  disappearance  would, 
granting  the  phenomena,  throw  little  if  any  light  upon  the 
problem.  The  modes  and  conditions  of  a  future  existence 
are  not,  however,  capable  of  revelation  to  us  for  the 
reason  that  we  are  incapable  of  apprehending  them.  It 
is  conceivable,  indeed,  that  a  human  soul  might  occupy  a 
plane  of  spiritual  vision  and  experience  from  which  it 
could  make  the  declaration  with  a  certainty  axiomatic  to 
its  intuitions  that  "  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of 
the  living,  for  all  live  to  Him  "  ;  and  this  declaration  would 
be  a  revelation  to  those  whose  spiritual  development 
rendered  them  capable  of  receiving  it.  But  if  one  should 
say  that  they  who  "  obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead  are  like  the  angels,  "  no  revelation  would 
be  made  to  men,  for  angelic  natures  and  modes  of  existence 
are  entirely  unknowable  to  them. 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  383 

These  examples  showing  what  is  revealable  and  what 
is  not  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  distinction  between  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  as  a  revelation  by  preeminence  and  the 
interpretations  and  transformations  of  it  contained  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  distinguishing  quality  of  the 
word  of  Jesus  that  it  is  essentially  a  declaration  of  facts 
which  can  be  apprehended  and  verified  by  the  intuitions 
and  experience  of  men.  So  far  as  it  makes  known  to 
men  what  before  they  did  not  know,  so  far  as  it  leads 
them  to  new  spiritual  experiences,  discloses  hitherto 
hidden  springs  of  action,  and  opens  to  them  new  possibil- 
ities of  divine  communion,  it  has  the  character  of  a  revela- 
tion of  moral  and  religious  truth.  If  we  may  regard  the 
whole  gospel  of  Jesus  as  comprising  not  alone  his  teach- 
ing, but  also  his  personality,  the  latter  cannot  but  be  seen 
to  be  a  very  fruitful  and  inspiring  revelation,  since  it  dis- 
closes an  intelligible  experience  far  above  the  usual  order 
of  human  experience.  In  it  are  disclosed  the  possibilities 
of  a  life  lived  in  communion  with  God,  the  divine  intui- 
tions of  one  who  remains  pure  in  heart,  the  repose  and 
peace  of  the  trusting  soul,  and  the  strength  and  victory 
to  be  attained  through  sacrifice  and  obedience.  These 
phenomena  have  the  quality  of  verifiability  which  belongs 
in  general  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  distinguishes 
them  as  revelations  and  as  religious  verities  from  the 
speculations  of  the  New-Testament  writers.  The  teach- 
ing which  makes  love  to  God  and  man  fundamental  and 
essential  in  religion  and  morals  commands  at  once  the 
assent  of  all  men  whose  ethical  and  religious  develop- 
ment brings  them  within  reach  of  his  influence.  It  is 
axiomatic  just  as  it  is  axiomatic  that  his  life  was  good. 
Both  propositions  may  be  verified  in  the  experience  of 
men.  There  is  one  revealed  religion  in  the  New  Tes- 


384        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

lament,  and  that  is  the  religion  of  Jesus.  There  are  also 
many  theologies  in  the  New  Testament,  but  they  are  not 
revealed  theologies.  To  become  aware  of  the  distinction 
between  the  two  things,  between  any  and  every  truth 
which  in  its  nature  is  a  revelation  and  any  and  every 
declaration  which  in  its  content  is  essentially  a  specula- 
tion, one  has  only  to  contrast  Jesus'  sound  and  fruitful 
teaching  about  the  righteousness  which  is  shown  in  works 
of  obedience  and  love,  and  the  Pauline  theory  of  a  right- 
eousness which  is  "  accounted  "  to  men  by  reason  of  faith. 
There  is  all  the  difference  here  that  exists  between  a  real- 
ity grounded  in  the  facts  of  human  nature  and  in  the 
moral  order,  and  a  factitious  scheme  produced  by  specula- 
tion. One  has  also  only  to  contrast  the  real  character  of 
Jesus  which  has  left  its  impress  upon  the  synoptic  tradi- 
tion with  the  Pauline  "  second  Adam,"  the  deutero-Pau- 
line  "  high-priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek," 
and  the  one  in  whom  dwelt  "  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily,"  or  with  the  Johannine  Logos  who  was  God 
and  with  God  in  the  beginning,  to  see  the  difference  be- 
tween a  living  and  inspiring  revelation  which  quickens, 
transforms,  rebukes,  and  uplifts  the  soul,  and  barren 
abstractions  bearing  no  intelligible  message,  no  word  of 
courage,  of  comfort,  or  of  strength. 

That  the  New  Testament  is  not,  however,  merely  a 
collection  of  diverse  theologies,  not  simply  a  gospel  and 
varying  interpretations  of  it,  is  obvious  even  to  the  casual 
reader  of  its  several  writings.  It  is  plain  that  one  of  its 
most  striking  characteristics  consists  in  its  pervasive 
unities.  Worthy  of  especial  consideration  is  it  also  that 
these  unities,  regarded  as  dominant  points  of  view,  lead- 
ing presumptions,  and  fundamental  doctrines,  are  found 
essentially  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  as  a  centre  from  which 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  385 

they  proceeded,  receiving  various  determinations  from  the 
media  through  which  they  passed.  The  fundamental 
presumption  of  the  religion  and  theology  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  Old-Testament  monotheism,  the  doc- 
trine of  one  God,  the  Creator  and  Moral  Governor  of  the 
world,  to  whom  the  historical  course  of  affairs,  particularly 
the  saving  mission  of  Christ,  holds  the  relation  of  the  ful- 
filment of  a  divine  design.  This  theological  view  of  the 
world  receives  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  a  distinctively 
religious  coloring  through  the  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood 
of  God,  which  is  also,  as  has  been  pointed  out,*  brought 
into  important  relations  with  conduct.  An  essential 
unity  of  teaching  regarding  man  also  pervades  the  New 
Testament.  He  is  the  child  or  creature  of  God,  the 
especial  object  of  the  divine  interest,  the  subject  of  God's 
moral  government  owing  allegiance,  service,  obedience, 
and  honor,  and  finding  his  supreme  spiritual  blessedness 
in  love  and  worship  of  his  Creator.  On  His  part  God 
reveals  Himself  to  man,  judges,  chastens,  and  rewards 
him,  to  the  end  that  He  may  establish  on  the  earth  His 
kingdom  of  righteousness,  through  which  man  may  be 
saved  from  sin.  The  Christological  unity  is  apparent  in 
the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah — though  not  the 
national  Jewish  Messiah-King— the  Son  of  God,  and  the 
Saviour  of  men  ;  that  his  mission  is  a  manifestation  of 
the  divine  grace  ;  that  he  died  for  the  sake  of  mankind, 
and  was  thereafter  manifested  as  victorious  over  death ; 
and  that  through  faith  men  may  come  into  that  fellowship 
with  him  which  is  life  eternal.  The  practical  unity  is 
expressed  in  the  teaching  that  love  to  God  and  man,  the 
sum  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  the  great  command- 
ment of  Jesus,  is  the  supreme  principle  of  the  religious 
*  See  page  81. 


386       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  moral  life.  The  eschatological  unity  is  indicated  in 
a  dominant  note  of  optimism  regarding  destiny,  with 
which  are  blended,  indeed,  the  sombre  shadings  of  an 
ominous  warning  of  judgment  upon  wilful  transgression. 
Setting  aside  the  pervasive  expectation  of  the  second 
coming  of  Christ  and  its  various  apocalyptic  expressions 
as  of  only  transient  importance,  there  are  intimations  of 
very  hopeful  significance  in  the  divine  interest  in  man 
manifested  in  the  economy  of  salvation,  in  the  delineation 
of  the  good  shepherd  and  of  the  forgiving  father  of  the 
prodigal's  story,  in  the  triumphant  anticipations,  expressed, 
indeed,  in  mythologic  terms,  of  the  overthrow  of  the 
powers  of  evil  in  the  consummation  of  Christ's  cosmic 
victory,  and  above  all  in  that  fundamental  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  The  reserve  both  of  Jesus 
and  the  New-Testament  writers  as  to  dogmatic  expres- 
sions regarding  destiny  is  not  perhaps  remarkable  when 
it  is  considered  with  what  absorbing  interest  they  ad- 
dressed themselves  to  themes  of  more  immediate  concern 
and  importance. 

It  must  be  regarded  as  the  misfortune  of  Christianity 
that  its  expounders,  instead  of  proceeding  from  the 
actual  unities  of  the  New  Testament,  have  attempted  to 
combine  its  diversities  into  a  factitious  unity.  Through 
a  radical  misapprehension  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  due  to 
the  want  of  the  historical  sense  and  the  absence  of  criti- 
cal discrimination,  it  has  been  sought  to  combine  into  a 
homogeneous  dogmatic  system  elements  which,  if  not 
antagonistic,  have  at  least  no  affinity  for  one  another. 
The  presupposition  from  which  this  procedure  sets  out  is 
the  totally  gratuitous  one  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  were  inspired  to  formulate  theologies.  It 
was  an  inference  from  a  groundless  assumption  that  their 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY.  387 

theologies  must  be  in  accord  with  one  another,  and  from 
this  point  of  view  have  been  constructed  the  uncritical 
systems  of  dogmatic  Christian  theology.  The  New 
Testament  contains  many  theologies  which,  studied 
apart  and  with  respect  to  their  origin  and  development, 
are  instructive  to  the  student  of  the  beginnings  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  and  speculation.  But  the  attempt  to  unite 
them  in  the  structure  of  a  " systematic  theology"  can 
only  result  in  a  most  unsystematic  product.  The  several 
Christologies  of  the  New  Testament  and  its  differing  con- 
ceptions of  salvation  and  of  the  means  of  attaining  it  do 
not  admit  of  combination  into  a  homogeneous  system. 
Jesus'  teaching  regarding  himself  and  the  Johannine 
Logos-speculation  as  to  his  nature  and  rank  are  mutually 
exclusive,  to  say  nothing  of  the  relation  to  both  of  the 
intermediate  Christologies,  and  the  union  of  his  doctrine 
about  righteousness  and  the  conditions  of  entering  the 
kingdom  of  God  with  the  Pauline  theories  of  redemption 
and  justification  is  unachievable  by  the  boldest  dogma- 
tism and  the  most  violent  harmonizing.  The  hermeneuti- 
cal  principles  or  assumptions  on  which  such  attempts 
proceed  are  radically  wrong.  If  the  New-Testament 
writings  are  literature — that  is,  productions  of  men,  they 
must  be  interpreted  by  the  canons  which  are  applicable 
to  literature  in  general.  If  they  are  not  of  this  character, 
then  it  is  obviously  necessary  before  proceeding  to  inter- 
pret them,  to  assign  them  to  some  other  class  of  products, 
and  adopt  rules  of  interpretation  which  would  apply  to 
them.  If  they  are  superhuman  productions,  it  is  not 
only  requisite  to  account  for  the  human  qualities  which 
they  manifest,  but  also  to  seek  for  a  revealed  hermeneu- 
tics  by  which  they  may .  be  interpreted.  The  inconse- 
quences and  absurdities  into  which  we  are  led  the 


388        THE   GOSPEL   AND   ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

moment  that  we  abandon  the  historical  point  of  view 
regarding  these  writings  make  it  plain  that  the  only  logi- 
cal theory  of  dealing  with  them  is  that  which  recognizes 
them  as  containing  theologies  which  are  to  be  examined 
genetically  and  apart,  and  that  those  who  have  endea- 
vored with  intentions,  however  good,  to  construct  out  of 
them  a  "  systematic  theology  "  have  rendered  a  great  dis- 
service to  the  truth  and  to  the  Church.  One  may  quite 
harmlessly  construct  a  systematic  theology,  if  one  has  a 
talent  for  it,  which  shall  represent  one's  philosophy  of 
salvation  and  one's  view  of  the  world,  but  the  endeavor 
to  substantiate  such  a  system  by  attempting  to  force  into 
agreement  the  differing  speculations  of  the  New-Testa- 
ment writers  on  the  presumption  that  they  were  inspired 
to  produce  authoritative  theologies  is,  to  say  the  least, 
grossly  misleading. 

The  character  and  extent  of  the  disservice  which 
Christian  theology  has  done  to  the  gospel  of  Jesus  may 
be  seen  in  its  persistence  in  emphasizing  things  non-essen- 
tial and  unknowable  to  the  comparative  neglect  of  mat- 
ters on  which  Jesus  himself  laid  the  chief  stress  of  his 
ministry.  The  primal  error  of  the  theologian  is  over- 
confidence.  He  thinks  that  he  is  able  to  elucidate  the 
ultimate  mysteries  of  the  universe.  Believing  that  the 
most  recondite  things  are  capable  of  revelation  to  man, 
and  holding  as  a  cardinal  principle  that  the  whole  of  the 
New  Testament  is  a  revelation,  he  has  seized  upon  the 
speculations  of  Paul  and  the  post-Pauline  writers,  and 
elevated  them  as  precious  disclosures  of  heaven  to  the 
rank  of  essentials  of  faith  and  salvation.  In  the  pride  of 
certainty  and  the  zeal  of  orthodoxy  he  has  even  gone  so 
far  as  to  deny  to  all  men  who  could  not  accept  them  as 
divine  truth  the  Christian  name  and  fellowship,  and  to 


THE    GOSPEL   AND    THEOLOGY,  389 

cast  doubt  upon  their  chances  of  attaining  eternal  life. 
Thus  to  his  theoretical  error,  that  occult  theologies  and 
Christologies  are  capable  of  revelation  to  the  human  intel- 
ligence, he  has  added  the  practical  error,  that  these  things, 
even  if  they  could  be  revealed  to  men,  have  any  value  for 
character,  any  fruitfulness  for  life,  any  "  saving  "  efficacy. 
Setting  up  as  a  standard  of  sound  faith  a  body  of  specu- 
lative doctrines,  he  has  regarded  as  heretics  all  who 
could  not  adjust  their  thinking  to  it,  and  by  a  strange 
transformation  has  converted  the  term  "  evangelical," 
which  originally  meant  relating  to  "  the  good  news,"  * 
into  a  synonym  of  a  popular  theological  metaphysics.  A 
popular  metaphysics,  indeed  !  For  Christian  theology 
has  succeeded  in  popularizing  a  metaphysics.  There  has 
always  been  a  class  of  persons — a  class  now  happily 
diminishing  very  rapidly — for  whom  speculations  about 
the  origin  of  things,  the  nature  and  purposes  of  God, 
occult  schemes  of  redemption,  and  human  destiny,  have 
a  strong  fascination.  They  are  attracted  by  any  one 
who  claims  to  have  disclosures  to  make  of  the  divine 
counsels,  or  who  has  an  apocalypse  to  preach.  They 
prefer  mythologies  to  morals,  and  would  rather  listen  to 
prophecies  of  a  kingdom  to  come  than  to  an  exposition 
of  Jesus'  kingdom  of  God,  to  an  account  of  the  topography 
of  the  celestial  and  nether  realms  than  to  "  the  words  of 
eternal  life."  The  discussion  of  a  "  plan  of  salvation  " 
which  includes  inscrutable  mysteries  has  more  interest  for 
them  than  a  discourse  upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
It  may  appear  upon  a  superficial  view  to  be  the  misfortune 
of  Christianity  that  the  leadership  of  its  exposition  has  so 
far  fallen  into  the  hands  of  speculative  men  and  makers 
of  theological  systems  that  its  spiritual  and  ethical  aspects 


390       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

have  been  obscured  by  the  mists  of  metaphysics,  and  its 
divine  verities  buried  under  a  mass  of  crude  dogma.  But 
a  profounder  apprehension  of  the  matter  discloses  a  divine 
progressive  order,  and  makes  it  apparent  that  these  blind 
guides  and  their  followers  represent  but  a  stage  in  the 
spiritual  evolution  of  mankind,  in  the  evolution  of  men's 
understanding  of  the  great  gospel  of  Jesus.  It  was  the 
fortune  of  this  gospel  to  be  borne  in  its  infancy  upon  an 
apocalypse,  and  to  be  nurtured  in  the  souls  of  men  who, 
had  they  not  been  "  gazing  up  into  heaven  "  to  discern 
the  signs  of  the  coming  of  their  Lord,  might  have  turned 
away  from  him  altogether  in  sickness  of  heart.  Perhaps 
it  is  a  necessity  of  the  nature  of  things  that  before  the 
spiritual  stage  of  the  evolution  of  Christianity  is  reached 
the  divine  spirit  of  the  gospel  should  be  passed  on  from 
age  to  age  in  apocalypses,  systems  of  speculation,  and 
metaphysics,  waiting  for  its  liberation.  For  liberated  it 
is  destined  to  be.  "  Spirit  cannot  be  captured  by  mechan- 
ism. Life  outlives  the  theories  that  would  tear  out  the 
heart  of  its  secret." 

"  Grau,  theuer  Freund,  ist  alle  Theorie, 
Und  grttn  des  Lebens  gold'ner  Baum."  * 

The  distinction  between  Christianity  and  the  religion  of 
Jesus,  which  has  already  been  pointed  out,  becomes  ap- 
parent in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  considerations. 
Christianity,  which  properly  means  the  religion  and  doc- 
trines taught  by  Christ,  has  come  to  signify  in  the  popular 
apprehension  and  usage  the  generally  accepted  theological 

*  "  All  theory,  dear  friend,  is  gray, 

And  green  the  golden  tree  of  life." 

See  The  Future  of  Liberal  Religion  in  America,  by  Dr.  J.  G.  Schurman, 
in  The  New  World,  1892,  pp.  29  ff. 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  39! 

tenets  of  Christendom  as  well  as  certain  principles  of  con- 
duct. The  transformation  of  the  original  gospel  of  Jesus, 
beginning  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  has  been  so  gradual 
and  complete,  and  has  proceeded  to  such  a  degree  for 
many  centuries  upon  the  assumption  of  the  unity  and  in- 
fallibility of  that  book,  that  it  is  scarcely  recognized  by 
Christians  generally ;  and  to  point  it  out  is  for  one  who 
does  it  to  run  the  risk  of  being  denounced  by  them  as  a 
traitor  to  the  cause  of  the  Master  himself.  Its  transfor- 
mation, however,  almost  to  the  point  of  irrecognizability 
is  a  most  obvious  fact  of  history.  The  great  Teacher  of 
the  synoptic  tradition  could  certainly  not  have  recognized 
himself  in  "the  second  Adam,"  "  the  high-priest  forever 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,"  the  one  containing  "  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  or  the  Logos  who 
"was  with  God  in  the  beginning,  and  was  God."  Still 
less  could  he  recognize  himself  in  the  rank  of  "  very  God  " 
assigned  to  him  in  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity ;  or  his  gos- 
pel, his  good  news  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  of  love,  and  of 
righteousness,  in  the  doctrines  of  vicarious  atonement, 
imputed  righteousness,  probation,  the  exclusion  of  men 
from  eternal  life  by  divine  decree,  and  the  materialistic 
topography  of  the  unseen  world  ;  or  his  spirit  in  the  pride 
and  pomp  of  ecclesiasticism,  the  splendor  of  worship  which 
has  no  beatitude  for  "  the  poor,"  the  persecution  of  here- 
tics, and  the  bitter  proscription  of  honest  and  pure  men 
who  cannot  accept  as  the  word  of  God  the  Christian  my- 
thologies and  speculations.  It  has  come  about  as  the 
result  of  this  transformation  that  Christianity  as  generally 
understood  and  promulgated  in  the  Church  has  more 
affinity  with  Paulinism  than  with  the  gospel  of  Jesus. 
There  is  nothing  more  lamentable,  more  inexplicable,  in 
the  whole  course  of  Christian  history  than  this  abandon- 


392        THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

ment  of  the  great  Master  by  his  professed  followers.  "  Of 
the  outward  and  inward,  of  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly 
part  of  his  thought  and  teaching,  the  one  has  been  taken, 
and  the  other  left.  On  this  small  and  mistaken  base  there 
has  been  heaped  up  an  immense  and  widening  mass  of 
Christian  mythology,  from  the  first  unstable  and  now  at 
last  apparently  swerving  to  its  fall.  And  let  it  fall.  For 
it  has  corrupted  the  religion  of  Christ  into  an  apocalyptic 
fiction  ;  and  that,  so  monstrous  in  its  account  of  man,  in 
its  theory  of  God,  in  its  picture  of  the  universe,  in  its  dis- 
torted reflections  of  life  and  death,  that,  if  the  belief  in  it 
were  as  real  as  the  profession  of  it  is  loud,  society  would 
relapse  into  a  moral  and  intellectual  darkness  it  has  long 
left,  and  the  lowest  element  of  modern  civilization  would 
be  itsfatt&."* 

Amid  all  these  aberrations,  however,  there  is  one  hope- 
ful indication ;  amid  all  the  darkened  speculations,  the 
barren  creeds,  the  dreary  dogmas,  which  denote  the  well- 
meant  infidelity  of  men  to  the  teaching  and  the  spirit  of 
Jesus,  there  is  discernible  a  ray  of  light,  now  hidden  in  the 
gloom,  now  flashing  out  in  the  luminousness  of  some 
great  soul  or  the  fervid  consecration  of  some  loving  heart. 
This  constant  amid  the  variable,  this  inextinguishable  light 
in  the  darkness,  is  the  sentiment  of  loyalty  to  Jesus  along 
with  whatever  misconceptions  of  his  person  and  his  word, 
acknowledgment  of  him  as  Master,  right  appreciation  of 
his  Spirit,  and  devotion  to  his  cause.  It  is  a  strange  para- 
dox that  among  those  who  have  most  radically  miscon- 
ceived Christianity  have  been  found  many  who  have  most 
truly  lived  it.  In  this  fact  is  indicated  the  legitimacy  of 
drawing  a  distinction  between  its  permanent  and  transient, 
its  divine  and  undivine  elements.  For  the  distinction  is 

*  Martineau. 


THE   GOSPEL  AND    THEOLOGY.  393 

practically  drawn  in  the  application  of  Christianity  to  the 
life  of  men,  since  it  is  the  divine  part  of  it,  the  gospel  of 
Jesus,  his  religion  practically  realized,  which  constitutes 
its  vitality  and  its  power.  In  his  teaching  of  righteous- 
ness, love,  purity,  and  unselfishness,  and  in  his  example  of 
obedience,  self-sacrifice,  and  helpfulness,  are  contained  the 
highest  motives  and  inspirations  of  which  man  is  suscep- 
tible. Whether  this  gospel  be  the  absolute  religion  or  no 
is  a  speculative  question  which  it  is  fruitless  to  discuss. 
One  day  of  earnest  endeavor  to  live  this  religion  is  worth 
more  than  a  cycle  of  discussion  of  its  absoluteness  or 
relativity.  Let  us  have  done  with  speculation  and  its 
labyrinthian  aberrations.  So  much  is  certain,  that  no 
higher  interpretation  of  life,  no  nobler  ideal  of  duty  than 
this  gospel  presents  has  ever  been  set  before  mankind  as  a 
spring  of  action  and  a  goal  of  endeavor.  No  teacher  has 
appeared  among  men  so  worthy  to  be  reverenced  by  them 
as  spiritual  Master  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Christian  union 
— that  divine  dream  of  the  noblest  spirits  of  Christendom — 
is  potentially  contained  in  his  gospel.  The  tendencies 
toward  it  in  the  Church,  already  becoming  marked  in  an 
unspoken  consensus  of  many  of  the  most  enlightened  and 
spiritual  believers,  denote  the  practical  realization  of  this 
gospel  conceived  as  a  doctrine  and  a  principle  of  life.  They 
are  manifested  in  the  greater  emphasis  which  is  placed 
upon  the  word  of  Jesus,  in  the  growing  indifference  to  the 
speculations  of  his  followers  early  and  late,  in  the  increas- 
ing appreciation  of  the  reverent  criticism  which  separates 
between  the  divine  word  and  human  traditions  and  specu- 
lations concerning  it ;  and  in  the  prevalent  sentiment  of 
fraternity  and  toleration  in  which  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
is  expressed.  There  will  then  be  Christian  union,  and  not 
before,  when  men  shall  have  come  to  estimate  the  gospel 


394       THE   GOSPEL  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATIONS. 

and  theology,  each  at  its  true  value  according  to  its  origin 
and  its  fruitfulness  ;  when  they  shall  reverence  and  cherish 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  the  word  of  life,  and  discard  the 
speculative  Christologies  and  metaphysical  systems  which 
have  divided  Christendom  into  opposing  camps,  and 
exalted  doctrine  instead  of  love  to  the  rank  of  "  the 
greatest  thing  in  the  world  "  ;  when  theologians  shall  place 
the  emphasis  of  the  gospel  where  Jesus  placed  it,  upon 
conduct  rather  than  upon  dogma,  practising  his  reserve 
regarding  destiny  and  things  unknowable ;  and  when 
preachers  shall  discourse  more  of  righteousness  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  less  of  theologies  and  the  kingdom  to 
come.  Then  character,  and  not  speculative  opinions,  will 
be  the  test  of  Christian  fellowship,  and  the  only  heretic 
will  be  he  whose  life  is  false  because  not  grounded  upon 
the  word  of  the  Master.  This  consummation  will  denote 
the  RETURN  TO  JESUS.  When  the  Church,  having  come 
to  herself,  shall  gather  her  scattered  children  from  their 
fruitless  quest  in  the  mazes  of  theology  into  a  union  upon 
the  common  ground  of  the  divine  gospel,  she  will  begin 
to  see  the  realization  of  the  dream  of  the  spiritual 
supremacy,  which  her  prophets  have  dreamed  for  ages,  in 
the  quickening  of  her  heart  and  in  the  enlistment  under 
her  banner  of  the  totality  of  the  most  enlightened  con- 
science and  intelligence  of  mankind. 


INDEX    OF    QUOTATIONS    FROM    THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT. 


MATTHEW. 

iii.  2 47,  71 

v.  3-6 73 

v.  3,  10 49 

v.  Q.  . 


92 


V.  12 

v.  17-20. 
v.  21-48. 

V.  22. . . . 


127 

86 

65 

132 

v.  24-30 51 

v.  27,  28 86 

v.  29,  30 133 

v.  34,  35 78 

v.  43-48 67,  86 

v.  44,  45 80,  92,287 

v.  45 65,  287 

vi.  i,  4,  6,  14 79 

vi.  12,  14,  15 72 

vi.  18 81 

vi.  20 127 

vi.  22,  26,  28 78 

vi.  24 81 

vi.  31,  32 79 

vii.  13 74 

vii.  15 65 

vii.  17 79 

vii.  21-27 7° 

vii.  21 92 

viii.  4,  u,  12 62 


CHAP.  PACK 

viii.  10 72 

viii.  19-22 75 

viii.  20 102 

ix.  1-8 104 

ix.  13 


71 

ix.  15 109 

ix.  16-18 89 

ix.  22 72 

x.  5,  6 61 

x.  20,  28 78,  147 

x.  32,  33 92 

x.  37 76 

x.  40 186 

xi.  12 48,  73 

xi.  19 86 

xi.  24 132 

xi.  25 88,  92 

xi.  27 81,  93 

xii.  1-9 104 

xii.  28 48 

xii.  32 52,  103 

xii.  36,  41,  42 132 

xii.  50 92 

xiii.  29 48 

xiii.  37 104 

xiii.  41-43 52 

xiii.  44-46 74 

xiii.  49,  50 52 

xiv.  14 301 


395 


396 


INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

MATTHEW  (Confd). 

xiv.  61 75 

xv.  21 61 

xvi.i3 91 

xvi.  13-21 96 

xvi.  16 95,  96 

xvi.  17 92 

xvi.  23 78,  120 

xvii.  12 103 

xvii.  22 109 

xviii.  10 78,  120 

xviii.  II 71 

xviii.  12 79,  81 

xviii.  23,  24 80 

xix.  12 78 

xix.  16-23 75 

xix.  17 98 

xix.  28-30 53 

XX.    17,  22 IO9 

xx.  28 98,  103,  in 

xxi.  ii 74 

xxi.  21 99 

xxi.  31,  41 119 

xxi.  33-43 81 

xxii.  30 119 

xxii.  30-33 128 

xxii.  34-40 66 

xxiii.  8 91 

xxiii.  22 78 

xxiii.  23 88 

xxiii.  34 186 

xxiv.  7,  8 46 

xxv.  30 3J3 

xxv.  34 287 

xxvi.  12 109 

xxvi.  28 114 

xxvi.  39 78 

xxvi.  53 90 

xxvi.  64 145 


CHAP.  PAGE 

xxvii.   17 62 

xxviii.  18 62,  145 

MARK. 


i.  3-..; 47 

i.  15 69,  72 

i-  23 47 

i.  23  f.  34 120 

ii.  1-13 104 

ii.  14-22 89 

ii.  16,  17 73 

ii.  18 76 

ii.  23 86 

iii.  ii,  15,  22f 120 

in-  29 135 

iv.  40 69 

V.    2-5 120 

v.  34 72 

vi.  3 138 

vi.  7 120 

vi.  34 301 

vi.  36 69 

vii.  7-17 84 

vii.  10 76 

vii.  15 86 

vii.  24-31 61 

viii.  27 96 

viii.  32 in 

viii.  33 120 

viii.  35 74 

ix.  17,  23 120 

ix.  23,  29 99 

ix.  43-48 133 

X.  I-I2 76 

x.  2-10 86 

x.  14 72 

x.  17-23 75 

x.  19 85 

x.  28 91 


FROM    THE  NEW   TESTAMENT. 


397 


MARK  (Confd), 

x.  47 95 

xi.  10 95 

xi.  13 79 

xi.  22 72 

xi.  23   69 

xi.  25 79 

xii.  1-12 93 

xii.  24-27 85,  128 

xii.  28-31 66,  85 

xii.  34 71 

xiv.  12 62 

xiv.  24 114 

xiv.  36 92,  99 

xiv.  38 71 

xv.  2,  18,  26,  32 95 

LUKE. 

iii.  11-14 71 

iv.  16-18 73 

iv.  16-28 98 

iv.  24 91 

v.  27-29 89 

vi.  20-27.  - 73 

vi.  35 275 

vii.  i 88 

vii.  50 72,  206 

viii.  48 72 

ix.  i8f 96,  120 

ix.  52   61 

ix.  57-62 75 

x.  17-20 93,  120 

x.  20 127 

x.  21 99 

xi.  14 120 

xi.  20 48,  99 

xii.  9 119 

xii.  49 109 

xiii.  3 59 


CHAP.  PAGE 

xiii.  ii 120 

xiii.  32 120 

xiii.  33 '.  ...log 

xiv.  16-24 7-1 

xiv.  25,  33 75 

xv.  1 1-32 82 

xvi.  13 74 

xvi.  16 48 

xvi.  19,  31 130 

xvi.  29 85 

xvii.  6 72 

xvii.  14 62 

xvii.  20,  21   48 

xix.  10 103 

xix.  18-23 75 

xx.  34-39 128 

xx.  35 123 

xx.  36 119 

xxii.  7-9 62 

xxii.  20 114 

xxii.  34 120 

xxiii.  46 92 

xxiv.  21 57 

xxiv.  26 144 

xxiv.  49 147 


JOHN. 


i.  i. 

i.  5- 


5-9- 


1.  10-12. 

i.  12 

i.  12,  13, 

i.  13.... 


.270 
.263 
.289 

.305 
.281 
.308 
.273 

.287 


i.  14,  18 

i.  17 288 

i.  1 8 270,  272 

i.  18,  48 283 

i.  29 261 


398 


INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS 


JOHN  (Confd). 


.292 
•304 


I,  12 295 

II v 300 

25,  32 283 

Hi  13 297 

11,  32 305 

12,  31 283 

13 284,  293,  309 

13,  32 386 

14 292,  302 

16,  17 275 

17,  18 278 

21,  33 273 

30,  31 290 

34 3" 

36 276 


14. 


,297 


24 > 272 

25,  35 304 

34 284,  296 

17 300 

17,  26 273 

19  20  283 

21,  26 283 

22 < 278 

23,24,30 296 

24 277 

27 284,  292,  293 

28,  29 123,  297,  315 

23,28,  29 293 

35 290 

301 

288 

305 


36.... 
39,46 
43-.. 


44 272 

16 296 

27,  53 292 

28,  29 306 


vi.  29,  35,  47 277 

vi.  34-58 299 

vi.  35,  37 305 

vi.  38,  42 295 

vi.  39,  40,  44,  54 315 

vi.  46 283 

vi.  53 294 

vi.  57,  63 273 

vi.  62 286 

vi.  64 283 

vii.  3,  5 295 

vii.  29 283 

vii.  32 301 

vii.  37 305 

vii.  39 311 

vii.  42 304 

vii.  46 296 

viii.  12 299 

viii.  15 278 

viii.  26 273 

viii.  29 296 

viii.  40 283 

viii.  43,  47 -.305 

viii.  44 288 

viii.  58 286 

viii.  59 299 

ix.  4 290 

ix.  5 3oi 

x.  3,  16 305 

x.  8 288 

x.  II,  15,  17 291 

x.  15 283 

x.  16 289 

x.  17 275 

x.  30,  38 282 

x.  32,  38 300 

x.  39 296 

xi.  4,  40 300 

xi.  15,  25,  26 277 

xi.  27 95 


FROM   THE  NEW   TESTAMENT. 


399 


CHAP.  PAGE 

JOHN  (Contd). 

xi.  33 291 

xi.  52 289,  304 

xii.  23,  24,  28 302 

xii.  23,  34 292 

xii.  27 291 

xii.  31 260,  280,  303 

xii.  37-41 263 

xii.  37 300 

xii.  41 289 

xii. 46 277 

xiii.  4-16,  34 300 

xiii.  18 144 

xiii.  20 .305 

xiii.  21,  37 291 

xiii.  27 303 

xiii.  31 292 

xiv.  1,6,   16,  28 283 

xiv.  9 282 

xiv.  10 259 

xiv.  12,  29 277 

xiv.  13 284 

xiv.  15,  21 306 

xiv.^iG 259 

xiv.  16,  19 312 

xiv.  23 308 

xiv.  30 260 

xiv.  31 307 

xv.  i,  4 305 

xv.  6 315 

xv.  9,   10 307 

xv.  9,  13,  24   300 

xv.  10 296 

xv.  ii 88 

xv.  26 259,  311 

xvi.  4,  15,  30 283 

xvi.  7 259,  311 

xvi.  ii 260,  280 

xvi.  13-16 312 

xvi.  14 312 


CHAP.  PAGE 

xvii.  i 302 

xvii.  3 64,  272 

xvii.  4 296 

xvii.  5 295 

xvii.  6,  9,  10,   17,  20 276 

xvii.  21 .277,  282,  308 

xvii.  22 263 

xvii.  23,  24 308 

xvii.  24 275 

xvii.  25 283 

xviii.  36 313 

xviii.  37 278,  305 

xix.  25,  26 295 

xx.  28 283 

xx.  31 95,  277 

ACTS. 

i.  3,9 J45 

i.  5   147 

ii.  23 144 

ii.  23-25 140 

ii.  39 148 

ii.  46 139 

iii.  i 139 

iii.  19  f 165 

iii.  19-22 147 

v.  31 140 

vii.  55 145 

vii.  58 157 

viii.  17 148 

ix.  ii 153 

x.  44-48 148 

xii.  25 88 

xiv.  1-6 149 

xiv.  26 88 

xvi.  9  159 

xxi.  20 1 39 

xxi.  39 153 

xxii.  3 153 

xxiv.  15 123 


400 


INDEX   OF  QUOTATIONS 


ROMANS. 

i.  ii 172 

>•  3 177 

i.  4 182,  183,  201 

i.  5,  16 205 

i.  17 204 

i.  23 189 

i.  28 181 

»•  5 204,  350 

ii.  5,  6,  16. . ., .. ,_- 224 


4 206,  209,  211 


277 


24 205 

25 192,  2OI 

i,  9 209 

8,  18 198 

9-1 1 196 

12 172,    173 

13,   14 174,   I89 


IS--- 

15-21 
19... 
20  .  .. 
4-7.. 


•350 
.209 

.201 

•93 


201 

199,   210 

177 

203 


vi.  7-H 199 

vi.  9,  10 239 

vi.  10 202,  261 

vi.  17 173 

vii.  4 200,  207 

vii.  6 193 

vii.  7-25 173,  176 

vii.  8    180 

vii.  9,  12,  17 172 

viii.  2 * 211,  293 

viii.  2-5 166 

viii.  3 201 

viii.  3,  10,  ii 185,  188,  192,  199 

viii.  4 179 

viii.  7 178 

viii.  8 180 

viii.  9-11 168 

viii.  10 220 

viii.  ii,  23 217 

viii.  13,  18 200 

viii.  15 81 

viii.  18 261 

viii.  19 201 

viii.  19 350 

viii.  20-23 125 

viii.  21 235 

viii.  26 148 

viii.  28 337 

viii.  29,  34 259 

viii.  34 327 

viii.  38 253 

ix.  3 177 

ix.  17 154 

ix.  23 278 

ix.  33 261 


x.  3- 


,204 


x.  3,  9,  10 205 

x.  4 193,  19-4 

x.  4-10 206 

xi.  25 234 


FROM    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 


401 


ROMANS  (Confd). 


XI. 

xi. 

xi. 

xii. 
xii. 
xii. 
xiii 
xiv 
xiv 
xvi 


3of. 

32.. 
36.. 


i. . . 
5  .... 
6,  7-. 
1-4.. 

.  2,  10 
.9.... 
.  25... 


.209 
•173 
•239 
.219 

.258 
.261 
.261 

,225 
.201 

,287 


I.  CORINTHIANS. 

i.  17,  30 190,  198 

ii.  14 177 

iii.  i-4 177 

iii.  13,  14 214 

v.  1-9 218 

vi.  2 224 

vi.  15 223 

vi.  17 208 

vi.  29 226 

vi.  30-33 219 

vii.  26 337 

vii.  29 226 

viii.  6 185,  239 

viii.  13 225 

viii.  25,  26,  29,  34,  38 334 

ix.  i 158 

ix.  9 156 

ix.  17 214 

x.  4 156 

xi.  3 258 

xi.  16 155 

xi.  23  f 116 

xii.  3 168,  201 

xii.  27 203 

xiii 231 


CHAP.  PAGE 

xiv.  2 148 

xiv.  21 154 

xiv.  37 167 

xv.  3 191,  192 

xv.  8 158 

XV.  12  f 2OI 

XV.  17 .202 

xv.  1 8 223 

XV.  l8,  19 222 

xv.  20 220- 

XV.  21 330 

xv.  21,  45,  47 183 

XV.  23 221 

xv.  25 224 

XV.  28 2O2 

xv.  29 191,  192 

xv.  35 217 

xv.  44-48 159 

xv.  45,  46 180,  182 

xv.  45 185 

xv.  47 174,  186 

xv.  52 218 

xv.  54-57 239 


II.  CORINTHIANS. 


4 

12 

14 

2 

10,  II 

11.  . 


15-  •• 

3,  17 
13..- 


.198 

.177 
.225 
.191 
.168 

•279 
.223 
.168 
•157 


13,  14 193 

13,  17 169,  182,  201 

17 166 

4 250,  259,  279 

4,  6 182,  187 


402 


INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS 


CHAP.                                                                                  PAGE 

II.  CORINTH  I  ANSfCiw/Vj 

CHAP. 

v   16    19  f  

PAGE 

178 

V.   21  

194 

v.  24  

221 

iv.  13.  •  •  • 

*•  J4 

vi.  7  

214 

vi.  ii  

154 

vi.  14  

2O6 

v.  4,  5.  .  . 

2IJ.     22^ 

ix.  21  

156 

v.  14,  15 

V     I* 

.  .  IQ3,   2IQ 

EPHESIANS. 
i.  4  

.257,   287 

2IO 

v    15    16 

.  .16* 

IO7 

182    188 

i.  6-1  1,  20  

256 

186 

i.  ii  

337 

i.  17,  18  

259 

V       ft 

CQ 

i.  20  

.  .263 

i.  21  

xi.  3*  *4« 

279 

i.  23  

258 

ii.  2  

254 

ii.  3  

277 

xii    7 

27O 

ii.  12-15  

255 

ooft 

ii.  14  

.  .257 

i    4 

GALATIANS. 

.    IQ2 

iii    t;   . 

2CQ 

.  .287 

iv    ii  

•     2<iQ 

i    15    16 

.  ,ic8    177 

iv    12     

2=;8 

ii    2 

I  an     ICQ 

iv   12    15 

2^8 

ii    o 

n8 

iv    12    16     .        ...      .    . 

2<;8 

ii    "O 

20  1    206   207 

v    23    28 

2*8 

...258 

iii    2 

166   208   211 

PHILIPPIANS. 

i    22              .                   .    .     .     . 

177    I7O 

iii    1  1 

lej.    247 

iii    13 

.  .IQI     IQ3    24^ 

iii    16 

m6 

.  .  17^    206 

i   2^ 

218 

iii    23 

261 

i    24 

I7Q 

iv    i 

208 

ii    2 

88 

iv   4 

187,  188 

ii.  5-8.. 

187 

v.  6.. 

.  .307 

ii.  7.. 

..l8q 

FROM    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 


403 


CHAP. 

PHILIPPIANS  (Confd). 
ii   8   9                         

PAGE 
27Q 

CHAP. 

I.  TIMOTHY. 

i  i 

PAGE 
•52Q      T.T.O 

ii    9  f                                            . 

.  2O  I 

i   3    10   19 

OOff 

.202 

i.  5    14.  . 

.  .m 

iii    4   9    18  f  

.206 

i.  I1?.  . 

HO 

iii    $  .  . 

.jcq 

i    16  

112 

iii    jo                 

.2IO 

ii    i   4  6     .    .          . 

117 

iii   12 

2cm 

ii   2   10   15 

111 

iii    19 

221 

ii    a    c 

11O 

iii.  21  159    163    201 

217 

ii.  6  

iv    ^ 

226 

ii    7  .  . 

.    127 

iii    I    2     .          ....  r  .... 

.  .116 

COLOSSIANS. 

114,  IIS 

330,  333 

i     I£                                                               2CO 

2e6 

iv.  I  

338,  339 

i    16    17 

iv.  2,  3  

327 

.^^u 

iv.  7,  9,  12  

333 

1      l8     2/1 

?CQ 

iv.  10  

.330,  337 

i      ofi 

<?ft*7 

iv.  10,  13,  15  

329 

iv.  ii  

339 

"•  9  

.251 

v.  to,  25   

333 

•^55 

v.  17,  18  

336 

•^49 

v.  18  

329 

•253 

vi.  3  

335 

V     17 

•259 

vi.  3,  5,  6,  ii,  18  

333 

.^^u 

vi    ^    i^    16 

12Q 

ITWTrQQ  A  T  ^"NTTATSIQ 

338 

iv.  13-18  125, 

203 

.048 

II.  TIMOTHY. 

iv   16  

.321 

ir     n 

v.  2,  3  

.223 

•  T»  9  

i      r\ 

333 

v.  2,  5  

.348 

i-  9  

337 

i.  9,  n,  15  

327 

•  -112 

II.  THESSALONIANS. 

111    11s? 

.  .88 

.•U8 

•  .336 

ii    2—4     ..              

•u8 

ii.  8.. 

.•^40 

ii.  ii.  . 

.  .120 

404 


INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

II.  TIMOTHY  (Contd). 
ii.  16,  17,  19,  20 336 

»•  l8 332,  335 

ii.  21,  22 333 

iii.  i 339 

iii.  1-6  337 

iii.  5,  10,  12,  16,  17 333 

iii-  8 335 

iii.  15 332 

iv.  i,  6 338 

iv.  3 339 

iv.  8 337 

iv.  17 327 


TITUS. 


i.  i 

i.  2 

i.  3 

i.  6 

i-9 
i.  10 
ii.  i 


333 

329 

330 

336 

335 

332 

335 

333 

330 

337 

329 

ii.  14,  23 331 

iii.  4 327,  330,  337 

iii.  5 333,  337 


ii.  2,  12.  , 
ii.  10  ---- 
ii.  II,  13- 
ii.  13  ---- 


PHILEMON. 


13. 


192 


HEBREWS, 
i.  2,  3 235 


i.  8. 


•237 


ii.  9 237 

ii.  9,  17 243 

ii.  10 239 


CHAP.  PAGE 

ii  12,  13 288 

ii.  14 239,  248 

ii.  14,  15 240 

iii.  i 234 

iv.  2 245 

iv.  15 239 

v.  8 239 

v.  9 245 

vi.  i 245 

vi.  2 247 

vi.  4-6 248 

vii.  3 23& 

vii.  14 237 

•vii.  25 203,  239,  327 

vii.  26 236 

viii.  8-12 263. 

ix.  7,  9,  13 241 

ix.  14 261 

ix.  15,  22 243 

ix.  16-28 239 

ix.  24 234,  273 

ix.  27,  29 24$ 

x.  i,  4 241,  242 

x.  3 242 

x.  5-9 288 

x.  5-10 240 

x.  14 242 

|  x.  17,  18 243 

I  x.  23 245 

x.  24,  25,  38 247 

x.  26,  27 248 

xi.  i,  4,  5,  33,  39 246 

xi.  36 239 

xii.  2 246 

xiii.  21 263 


I.  PETER. 
i.  5,  18 

i.  7,  13 

i.  8,  10,  n,  23 


.261 
.264 
,263 


FROM    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 


405 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  PETER  (Contd). 

i.  20 287 

ii.  6,  7,  13,  14,  21 261 

ii.  7,  9 263 

iii.  5,  6,  20,  22 263 

iii.  S,  18 261 

iii.  19 264 

iii.  21,  22 262 

iv.  i 262 

iv.  5,  6 , 264 

iv.  10,  ii 261 

iv.  14 263 

v.  i. .  .  .261 


v.  4. 
v.  8. 


.263 
,264 


II.   PETER. 

i.  2,  8,  5-8 342 

i.  16-21 343 

ii.  3,  9,  15,  20 345 


11.  4. 


,264 


ii.  10 340 

ii.  ii,  12,  17,  20 342 

".  2,4-8 343 

iii.  3-5,  18 342 

iii.  7 345 

iii.  8 151 

iii.  8-10,  13 344 

iii.  13 125 

I.  JOHN. 

i.  2 330 

i.  5,  6,  7 321 

ii.  i 203 

ii.  i,  2,  18,  20 326 

ii.  2,  4,  6,  9,  22,  26. 321 

ii.  5,  6,  29 323 


CHAP.  PAGE 

ii.  20,  27 322 

iii.  5 321 

iii.  5-8 330 

iii.  9,  10,  ii,  14,  16,  17 323 

iii.  10 212 

iv.  2 322,  330 

iv.  2,  10,  15 321 

iv.  10 326 

iv.  12,  13 ..324,  325 

iv.  20 66 

v.  i,  2 323 

v.  i,  5,  6,  8 321 

II.  JOHN. 
7 32i,  330 


JUDE. 


1-5,6 

4,  8,  9 

9,  10,  12,  17. 


339 
340 
342 


REVELATION. 

i,  3 350 

5 353,  354 

8 351,352 

13,  17 353 


18, 


•355 


8 353 

9 350 

10,  13 261,  358 


I9.. 

2.  .  . 

8,9. 
21.  . 


.356 
•356 

•357 
•355 
.352 


406 


INDEX   OF  QUOTATIONS. 


CHAP.  PAGE 

REVELATION  (Confd). 


iv.  5 351 

v.  9 356 


v.  9,  12 354 

vi.  9 356 

vi.  10 360 

vii.  2 358 

vii.  9 356 

vii.  ii 351 

vii.  17 353 

viii.  2 358 

ix.  ii 350 


x.  5 


.358 


xi.  8,  13 357 

xi.  17 351 

xii.  3,  9,  10,  12,  17 358 

xii.  5 352 

xii.  ii,  17 356 

xiii.  2,  4,  ii 358 


CHAP.  PAGE 

xiv.  12 356 

xiv.  20 352 

xv.  3 351,  352 

xvi.  i 352 

xvi.  3,  5 358 

xvi.  6 360 

xvi.  7,  14 351 

xviii.  8 352 

xix.  13 353 

xix.  15,  17-21 352 

xix.  16 355 

xix.  7,  9-12,  19-21 359 

xix.  17 358 

xx.  3,  10 358 

xx.  4,  5,  9,  ii,  15 359 

xxi.  1-5 359 

xxi.  6.... 353 

xxi.  22 351 

xxii.  i,  3,  13 353 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Accommodation,    not    practised  by 

Jesus,  121 
Adam,  his  relation  to  sin  and  death 

in  Paulinism,  173  ;  Christ  as  the 

"second,"  182,  367 
Alexandrianism,  in  Hebrews,   234  ; 

in  deutero-Pauline  literature,  265  ; 

in  fourth  Gospel,  267 
Allegorical  interpretation  employed 

by  Paul,  156 
Angels,  the,  of  the  Jewish  mythology 

recognized  by  Jesus,  119;  guardian, 

1 20  ;  in  Revelation,  357 
Antichrists  in  I  John,  321 
Anti-Gnostic  interpretations  of  the 

gospel,  318-345 
Apocalypse,  the  little,  in  2  Thessa- 

lonians,  348  f. 

Apocalyptic  passages  in  the  synop- 
tics, 127  ;  literature  of  Judaism, 

character  of,  42 

Apocalyptic,  the  Jewish,  346-361 
Apocryphal  literature,  Paul's  use  of, 

154 

Arnold,  Matthew,  on  Paul's  mysti- 
cism, 198,  229 

Atonement,  for  sin  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 40  ;  a  sacrificial,  not  taught 
by  Jesus,  115 

Atoning  death  of  Christ  in  Paulin- 
ism, 191-203 


B 


Baldensperger,  on  the  Son  of  Man, 
1 06  ;  on  the  characteristics  of 
apocalypse,  346 


Baptism,  the,  for  the  dead,  in  Paul's 
teaching,  222 

Bauer,  Bruno,  as  an  historical  critic, 
8 

Baur,  F.  C.,  his  view  of  the  Gospel- 
history,  19  ;  on  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles, 20  ;  on  the  synoptic  Gospels, 
21  ;  on  the  supernatural,  22  ;  on 
the  Son  of  Man,  103  f  on  Paul's 
Docetic  view  of  the  flesh  of 
Christ,  189;  on  "  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  "  in  Paul's  teaching, 
204 

Believers,  the  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 
276  :  as  judges  of  the  world  in 
Paul's  teaching,  225 

Blasphemy,  the,  against  the  Holy 
Spirit,  103 

Blood  of  Christ,  a  new  covenant  in, 

H5 

Body,  the  spiritual,  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, 220 

Bruckner  on  the  Son  of  Man,  106 


Caesarea  Philippi,  the  scene  at,  96 
Canonicity  in  the  early  Church,  29 
Change,  the,  of  the  living  Christians 
at  the  Parousia  in  Paul's  teaching, 

221 

Christ  as  the  "  second  Adam,"  182  f, 
367  ;  as  "the  man  from  heaven," 
184  ;  his  preexistence  in  the 
teaching  of  Paul,  185  f;  death  of, 
in  the  teaching  of  Paul,  191  f., 
198  f,  209  ;  union  with,  in  Paul's 
doctrine,  208  ;  his  second  coming, 
216  f 

Christianity,  and  its  literature  errone- 


407 


408 


Index  of  Subjects. 


ously   identified,    32  ;     contrasted 
with  the  religion  of  Jesus,  390 
Christology,  the,  of  Paul,  181-203  > 
of  Hebrews,   235  ;   of  Colossians, 

250  ;  of   Ephesians,  256  ;  of  the 
New  Testament  culminates  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  269  ;    of  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles,  350  ;  of  Revelation, 
352  ;  the  deutero-Pauline,  371 

Church,  the,  in  the  Pastoral  Epis- 
'  ties,  335 
Colossians,  Epistles  to  the,  249-255  ; 

combats  Gnostic  tendencies,  249  ; 

Christology  of,  250  ;  salvation  in, 

251  ;   "  pleroma  "  in,  252 
Conversion,  the,  of  Paul,  157-164 
Covenant,   a  new,   in  the  blood  of 

Christ,   115 

Criticism,  and  theory  of  unity  of 
doctrine  in  the  New  Testament, 
4  ;  point  of  view  of,  24 

Critical  and  dogmatic  methods  con- 
trasted, 33 

Cross,  the,  and  the  law  in  Paul's 
teaching,  191  ;  a  stumbling-block 
to  Paul,  162 


1) 


Daniel,  term  Son  of  Man  in,  100, 
107  ;  resurrection  in,  124 

Death,  Paul's  view  of  entrance  of, 
into  the  world,  173  ;  of  unbe- 
lievers, 223  ;  of  Christ  in  the 
teaching  of  Paul,  190  f  ;  of 
Christ  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  309  ; 
in  Revelation,  358 

Demoniacal  possession,  Jesus'  atti- 
tude toward,  120 

Destiny,  Jesus' reserve  regarding,  135 

Devil,  the,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
i  20  ;  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  279 

De  Wette,  his  biblical  theology,  13 

Divination,  critical,  18 

Docetic  view  of  flesh  of  Christ  in 
Paul's  teaching,  189 

Doctrine,  exaltation  of,  394 

Dogmatic  and  critical  methods  con- 
trasted, 33 

Doxology,  the,  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
116 


Dualism  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  279 
E 

Ebionites,    the,     their    Christology, 

143 

Elohim,  the  sons  of,  and  the  daugh- 
ters of  men,  45 

Enoch-Parables,  the,  and  the  Son  of 
Man,  100,  184  ;  represent  the 
Messiah  as  judge,  125  ;  resurrec- 
tion and  award  in,  136 

Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  254-260  ; 
Christology  of,  256  ;  the  Church 
in,  258  ;  mythology  of,  259  ;  sal- 
vation in,  256 

Epimenides,  citation  of,  in  Titus, 
153 

Epiphanes,  341 

Eschatology,  ideas  of,  akin  to  Juda- 
ism in  Paul's  teaching,  224  ;  of 
Hebrews,  246  ;  not  defined  in 
Ephesians,  260  ;  of  i  Peter,  263  ; 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  313  ;  in  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  337  ;  in  2  Peter, 
343  ;  the  Pauline,  369 

Evangelists,  the,  their  unconscious 
testimony  to  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  97 

Everlasting  pnnishment,  resurrec- 
tion to,  not  taught  by  Paul,  223 

Exaltation  of  Christ  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  282 


Faith,  no  dogmatic  formula  of,  from 
Jesus,  72  ;  in  Christ  in  Paul's 
teaching,  206,  210 ;  justification 
by,  according  to  Paul,  205,  229  ; 
and  works,  Pauline  and  Johannine 
view  of,  contrasted,  304  ;  in  fourth 
Gospel,  305  ;  in  i  John,  323  ;  in 
Pastoral  Epistles,  333 

Family,  the  solidarity  of  the,  in 
Judaism,  174 

Fatherhood  of  God,  Jesus'  teaching 
of  the,  78-84 

Flesh,  meaning  of,  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings, 175-178  ;  and  sin  in  Paul's 


Index  of  Subjects. 


409 


teaching,  171-181  ;  in  the  Old 
Testament,  177  ;  identified  with 
sin,  178  ;  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  fourth  Gospel,  299,  313 

Forgiveness  of  sins,  taught  by  Jesus, 
117  ;  has  no  distinct  expression  in 
Paul's  teaching,  254  ;  in  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  254 

Fourth  Gospel,  and  the  synoptics, 
1 8  ;  general  character  of,  373 

Future  life,  the,  in  teaching  of  Jesus, 
118-137  ;  in  teaching  of  Paul, 
216-231  ;  in  fourth  Gospel,  313  ; 
how  far,  revealed  to  man,  382 


Gabler,  his  idea  of  biblical  theology, 

8 
Gehenna,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 

133  ;  not  mentioned  in  the  fourth 

Gospel, 
Genealogy,    the,    of    Jesus    from   a 

Jewish  point  of  view,  142 
Genuineness  of   the  Gospels,   char- 

acter of  testimony  to,  27 
Gnostic  ideas  in  the  Church,  319  ; 

contested    in    Pastoral     Epistles, 

327,    332 
God,  as  Father  in  the  Old  Testa- 

ment, 40  ;  fatherhood  of,  in  teach- 

ing of  Jesus,   78-84  ;  doctrine  of 

nature  of,  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

272  ;     as     Saviour     in     Pastoral 

Epistles,   330 

Gospels,  title  of,  and  authorship,  32 
Gospel-criticism,  bearing  of,  on  life 

of  Jesus,  17 
Gospel,  the,  and  theology,  362-394  ; 

the,  of  Jesus  contrasted  with  its 

accretions,  377 
Governmental    conception    of    God 

among  the  Jews,  40 


H 


Hades,  Jewish  doctrine  of,  122  ; 
Jesus'  sayings  regarding,  130 

Harnack,  on  Hellenism  in  the 
Church,  328  ;  on  Vischer's  hypoth- 
esis regarding  Revelation,  350 


Hase  on  Jesus'  idea  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  59 

Hausrath,  his  History  of  the  New 
Testament  Times,  26 

Hebrews,  the  Epistle  to  the,  233- 
249  ;  relation  of,  to  Alexandrian- 
ism,    234 ;    Christology  of,    235 
points  of  contact  with  Paulinism 
239  ;  doctrine  of  salvation  in,  241 
on   Satan,    244 ;    on   faith,    245 
eschatology  of,  247  ;  on  the  lapse 
of  believers,  248 

Hellenistic  ideas,  Paul's  contact 
with,  227 

Hellenism,  came  gradually  into  the 
Church,  318 

Hilgenfeld  on  Jewish  apocalypses, 
346 

Hillel,  his  idea  of  righteousness,  64 

Historical,  interpretation,  its  estab- 
lished position,  24  ;  criticism,  ob- 
jections to,  answered,  26 

History,  interpretation  of,  by  the 
Jews,  39 

Holsten,  his  study  of  o  Ttarrjp  >uot>, 
92  ;  on  "  the  righteousness  of 
God  "  in  Paul's  teaching,  204 

Holtzmann,  on  the  Son  of  Man,  117  ; 
on  i  John,  325 

Holy  Spirit,  blasphemy  against,  43  ; 
doctrine  of,  among  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, 147  ;  in  fourth  Gospel,  311 


Idealism  of  Alexandrian  philosophy 

in  Hebrews,  234 
Idealization  of  Christ  in  the  fourth 

Gospel,  269,  282 

Immer,     his    New-Testament    the- 
ology, 26 

Imputation  in  Paul's  soteriology,  210 
Incarnation,  the,  of  the  Logos,  291 
Incongruities  in  the  Gospels,  366 
Inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  doctrine 

of,  4 

Inspiration  not  historically  demon- 
strable,    2  ;     doctrine     of,    in    2 
Timothy,    328 
Intermediate  state,   in   teaching  of 


Index  of  Subjects. 


Jesus,   130,  133  ;  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, 218 
Israel,  the  chosen  people,  37 


Jahveh,  concealment  of  name  of,  44 

James,  the  Epistle  of,  and  Paulinism, 
212 

Jesus,  relation  of,  to  Judaism,  35  ; 
a  patriot,  59  ;  on  the  kingdom  of 
God,  46-71  ;  relation  of,  to  apoca- 
lyptic passages  in  the  synoptics, 
51  ;  his  originality,  67,  68  ;  spirit 
of,  characterized,  72  ;  teaching  as 
to  God,  78-84 ;  attitude  toward 
the  Old  Testament,  84-90 ;  his 
teaching  regarding  his  person,  90- 
108  ;  did  not  claim  a  divine  na- 
ture, 91,  98  ;  as  Son  of  God,  92  ; 
as  the  Son  of  Man,  99,  104  ;  his 
sayings  concerning  his  death,  109- 
118  ;  his  teaching  regarding  the 
life  to  come,  118-137  ;  relation  to 
the  demonology  of  his  time,  119  ; 
his  teaching  regarding  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  132  ;  his  teaching  not 
limited  by  the  opinions  of  his  age, 
136  ;  general  character  of  his  re- 
ligion, 366 

Jews,  Palestinian  and  Alexandrian, 
doctrines  common  to,  42 

Jewish  Christians,  their  Christology, 
140 

Jewish  doctrine  of  relation  of  God 
to  human  affairs,  39 

Jewish  Christianity,  weakness  of,  151 

Jewish-Messianic  expectations,  38 

Johannine,  transformation  of  the 
Gospel,  267-317 ;  doctrine  of 
Logos,  268 ;  doctrine  of  God, 
274 ;  of  the  divine  love,  275  ; 
doctrine  of  the  devil,  279  ;  exalta- 
tion of  Christ,  282  ;  doctrine  of 
salvation,  297  ;  eschatology,  313 

Josephus  on  the  life  to  come,  122 

Judaism,  monotheism  of,  36 

Jude,  Epistle  of,  338-341 

Judgment,  obscurity  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing on,  132  ;  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 
278 


Justification  by  faith,  in  Paul's 
teaching,  205  ;  moral  factor  in, 
210  ;  extreme  and  abstract  state- 
ment of,  211 

Justin  Martyr,  his  Gospels,  29 
Juvenal  on  sinf  ulness  of  evil  thoughts, 
66 


K 


Kaiser,  his  biblical  theology,  13 

Kant,  his  doctrine  of  the  moral  in- 
terpretation, 10 

Keim  on  Jesus'  idea  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  59 

Kingdom  of  God,  Jesus'  teaching 
regarding,  46-62  ;  traditional  idea 
of,  modified  by  Jesus,  48  ;  the 
realization  upon  the  earth  of  the 
highest  spiritual  ideals,  49  ;  Jesus' 
doctrine  of  consummation  of,  51  ; 
apocalyptic  view  of,  not  adopted 
by  Jesus,  54 ;  particularistic  or 
universal  ?  60 ;  conditions  of  enter- 
ing, according  to  Jesus,  71-84 


Last  Supper,  the,  not  an  institution, 
of  Jesus',  115, 

Law,  Jesus'  relation  to  the,  86  ;  the, 
"in  the  members"  in  Paul's 
teaching,  175  ;  works  of,  do  not 
justify,  according  to  Paul,  204  ; 
of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Paul's 
teaching,  21 1 

Lechler  on  conflict  between  Paul 
and  the  original  apostles,  139 

Legalistic  conception  of  divine  gov- 
ernment among  the  Jews,  41 

Life,  everlasting,  as  antitheses  of 
death  in  Paul  s  teaching,  223  ;  to 
come,  Jesus'  teaching  regarding, 
118-137  ;  locality  of,  in  Jesus' 
teaching,  127  ;  law  of  the  spirit 
of,  211 

Logos,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  267  ; 
as  mediator,  281 

Love  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  309 


Index  of  Subjects. 


411 


M 


Man,  duties  toward,  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  66 

Mark's  report  of  Jesus'  words  on  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  135 

Martineau,  on  Jesus'  Messiahship, 
96  ;  on  Vischer's  hypothesis  as  to 
Revelation,  350 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  historical  testi- 
mony regarding,  27  ;  perversion 
of  Old  Testament  passages  in,  141 

Mediator,  no  place  for,  in  Jesus' 
teaching,  70  ;  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 281 

Melanchthon,  his  point  of  view  in 
his  Loci  Theologici,  6 

Mercy  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 
40 

Messiah-idea  of  the  prophets  trans- 
formed by  Jesus,  86  ;  the  tradi- 
tional one  modified  by  Jesus,  99 

Messiahship  of  Jesus,  proof  of,  from 
the  Old  Testament,  141  ;  as  con- 
ceived by  Paul,  367 

Messianic  expectations,  38,  46 

Messianism,  the,  of  the  Septuagint, 
184 

Meyer,  on  Jesus'  fulfilment  of  the 
law,  88  ;  on  Paul's  injunction  as 
to  the  veiling  of  women  in  the 
churches,  155  ;  on  Paul  and  the 
rabbinical  lore,  156 

Miracles  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 300 

Miraculous   conception,   legend   of, 

143 
Monotheism,  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

312  ;  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  329 
Morals  and  religion  in  the  teaching 

of  Jesus,  84 
Mythology  in   Ephesians,    239 ;   in 

Revelation,  357 


N 


National  Messianism,  the,  and  the 
Jewish  conception  of  the  life  to 
come,  127 

Nations,  the,  in  the  Messianic  judg- 
ment, 127 


Nature,  the  human,  of  Jesus,  99  ; 

external,  the  object  of  the  divine 

goodness  in  Philo,  274 
Nazarenes,  the,  Christology  of,  143 
New    commandment,    the,    in    the 

fourth  Gospel,  299 
New  covenant,   a,  in  the  blood  of 

Christ,  115 
NovS  in  Paul's  teaching,  177 


O 


Old  Testament,  legislation  of,  op- 
posed by  Jesus,  65 ;  idea  of,  God  in, 
substantially  retained  by  Jesus,  78  ; 
Jesus'  attitude  toward,  84-90  ;  use 
of  term  Son  of  Man  in,  100  ;  texts 
from,  misapplied  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 141  ;  Paul's  idea  of  inspi- 
ration of,  156 

Oneness  of  believers  with  Christ  in 
the  fourth  Gospel,  308 

Organ  of  revelation,  relation  of,  to 
other  men,  381 

Origen  quotes  Aristobulus,  30 

Original  sin,  doctrine  of,  not  taught 
by  Paul,  174 

Originality  of  Jesus,  67,  68,  80,  95 


Papias  on  the  fourth  Gospel,  28 
Paraclete,  the,  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

311  ;  in  i  John,  326 
Parousia,  the,  as  held  by  the  Jewish 
Christians,  144-146,  165  ;  in  Paul's 
teaching,  216-231  ;  in  I  Peter, 
263  ;  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  313  ; 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  337  ;  in 
2  Peter,  343 

Passion  of  Jesus,  to  what  extent 
foretold  by  himself,  no;  Peter's 
discourse  on,  in  Acts,  140 
Pastoral  Epistles,  the,  327-338 
Paul,  on  the  resurrection,  125  ;  his 
early  life,  153  ;  his  familiarity  with 
the  Old  Testament  and  apocryphal 
literature,  154  ;  rabbinical  traits, 
155  ;  his  allegorical  and  typological 
interpretation,  156;  his  conversion, 
157-164  ;  his  idea  of  the  Messiah, 


412 


Index  of  Subjects. 


165  ;  his  doctrine  of  sin  and  the 
flesh,  171-181  ;  his  Christology, 
182-203  I  his  teaching  regarding 
justification,  205  ;  his  teaching 
regarding  the  future  life,  216-228  ; 
his  mysticism,  229 

Paulinism,  not  a  system,  228  ;  rela- 
tion of  the  immediate  successors 
of  the  apostle  to,  232 

Person  of  Jesus,  the,  in  his  own  teach- 
ing, 90-108  ;  prominence  accorded 
to,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  299 

Peter,  Epistle  of,  260-266 ;  shows 
an  approximation  to  the  Johannine 
teaching,  260  ;  relation  of,  to 
Paul,  261  ;  faith  in,  262  ;  baptism 
in,  262  ;  salvation  in,  262  ;  the  2d 
Epistle  of,  342-345 

Pfleiderer,  his  Urchristenthum,  26  ; 
on  the  entrance  of  Hellenism  into 
the  Church,  318  ;  on  the  Christi- 
anity of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  334 

Philo,  his  doctrine  of  the  earthly  and 
the  heavenly  man,  184  ;  on  the 
Logos,  237,  271  ;  on  the  love  of 
God,  273 

Pleroma,  252 

Pragmatism,  the,  of  the  biblical 
writers,  39 

Predestination  in  Paul's  teaching,  214 

Preexistence  of  Christ  in  Paul's 
teaching,  185  ;  in  Hebrews,  237  ; 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  285 

Prodigal  son,  parable  of  the,  82,  117 

Propitiation  in  the  teaching  of  Paul, 
196 

Protestantism  and  the  Scriptures,  5 

Punishment  of  sin,  in  Jesus'  teaching, 
132  ;  endlessness  of,  not  explicitly 
affirmed  or  denied  by  Jesus,  135  ; 
resurrection  to  endless,  not  taught 
by  Paul,  223 


Ransom,  Jesus'  saying  regarding  his 
death  as  a,  114;  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, 191  f ;  not  in  fourth  Gospel, 

374 
Rationalism,  as  opposed  to  historical 


criticism,    10  ;    application   of,  to 

interpretation,  n 
Reconciliation  with  God   in   Paul's 

teaching,   197 
Redemption,    in     Paul's     teaching, 

191    f  ;    in    Colossians,    251  ;    in 

Ephesians,   256  ;    in  the   Pastoral 

Epistles,  331 
Religion,    historical   study  of,    how 

impeded,  2  ;  as  relative,  3 
Renovation  (7t(xA.tyy£r£<jia),  53 
Renunciation    in    the    teaching    of 

Jesus,  74 
Repentance    and    the    kingdom   of 

God,  71 
Resurrection,  Paul  on  the,  125  ;  in 

Jesus'  teaching,  127  ;  of  Christ  in 

Paul's  teaching,  200  f  ;  of  men  in 

Paul's  teaching,  219 
Reuss,  his  New-Testament  theology, 

25 

Righteousness,  the,  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  in  Jesus'  teaching,  62-71  ; 
in  the  Old  Testament,  63  ;  Jesus' 
conception  of,  in  relation  to  that 
of  Judaism,  65  ;  Jesus'  inclusion 
of  duties  to  man  in,  66  ;  Jesus' 
view  of,  in  relation  to  Paul's,  70  ; 
by  "faith"  not  taught  by  Jesus, 
71  ;  "of  God,"  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, 204 


Sabbath,  Jesus'  attitude  toward,  85, 

108 
Salvation,  Jesus  teaching  regarding, 

71  f  ;  in  Paul's  teaching,  190  f  ; 

in  the  fourth  Gospel,  296,  306 
Satan,  in  the  Old   Testament,   45  ; 

in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  120  ;  in 

the  fourth  Gospel,  281 
Schleiermacher  on  religion,  2 
Semler,  his  critical  work,  6 
Sheol,  Jewish  doctrine  of,  122 
Sin  and  the  llesh  in  Paul's  teaching, 

171-181 

Son  of  God,  Jesus'  teaching  regard- 
ing himself  as  the,  92 
Son  of  Man,  as  a  self-designation  of 

Jesus,    99,    104  ;    in    Daniel,    99, 


Index  of  Subjects. 


413 


107  ;    as    lord    of    the    Sabbath, 

108  ;  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  292 
Stevens,  the  Pauline  Theology,  189 
Strauss,   his    Life  of  Jesus,   14  ;  on 

miracles,  15 

Supper,  the  last,  not  an  institution 
established  by  Jesus,  116 

Synoptics,  the,  and  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 1 8 


Temptation,  the,  of  Jesus,  143 

Theology,  its  disservice  to  religion, 
388  ;  has  popularized  a  meta- 
physics, 389 

Theologian,  the,  his  radical  error, 
388 

Tongues,  the  speaking  with,  148 

Toy,  on  Jesus  and  the  apocalyptic 
sayings  ascribed  to  him,  56  ;  on 
the  early  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  124 

Transformation,  of  Hebraism  by 
Jesus,  35;  of  the  gospel  by  Paul, 
152,  170,  229;  the  Johannine,  of 
the  gospel,  267-317  ;  of  the  re- 
ligion of  Jesus  in  and  subsequent 
to  the  New  Testament,  391 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  not  held  by 
Jewish  Christians,  149 

Tubingen  school,  ihe,  and  historical 
criticism,  21  ;  modifications  of,  24 

Types  of  New-Testament  teaching 
contrasted,  376 


U 


Unbelievers,  the,  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 276 

Underworld,  the,  in  teaching  of 
Jesus,  130,  133;  in  Paul's  the- 
ology, 217  ;  legend  of  descent 
of  Christ  to,  264 

Union,  with  Christ,  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, 208  ;  in  the  Johannine 
thought,  309  ;  Christian,  poten- 
26 


tially  contained  in   the  gospel  of 
Jesus,  393 

Unities  of  the  New  Testament,  384 
Unity  of  doctrine  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,   theory  of,   a  hindrance  to 
critical  study  of  that  book,  4 


Verifiability  of  gospel  of  Jesus,  379, 

384 

Virgin-birth,  the,  of  Jesus,  142 
Vischer  on  Revelation,  350 
Visions,  Paul's  tendency  to,  159 
Volter's  division  of  Revelation,  350 
Von     Colin,      his     New-Testament 

Theology,  14 


W 


Weiss,  his  New-Testament  The- 
ology, 26 

Wendt  on  fj-itiEi  in  Luke  xiv.  25, 
76 

Wisdom,  book  of,  idea  of  righteous- 
ness in,  64  ;  probably  used  by 
Paul,  154 

Woman  as  ' '  deceived  "  and  ' '  saved  " 
in  i  Timothy,  334 

Women,  Paul's  requirement  as  to 
their  heads  being  covered  in 
church,  155 

Work  of  Christ  continued  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

3ii 
Works,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,   306  : 

in  the  pastoral  Epistles,  334 
Wrath  of  God  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 

276 


Zacharia,  his  biblical  theology,  7 
Zeller,  his  judgment  of  the  rational- 
istic interpretation,  13  ;  onspurious 
Pythagorean  writings,  31 


GOSPEL-CRITICISM 
AND   HISTORICAL   CHRISTIANITY 

A  Study  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  History  of  the  Gospel- 
Canon  during  the  Second  Century  ;  together  with  a  con- 
sideration of  the  Results  of  Modern  Criticism.  By  Orello 
Cone,  D.D.  Second  Edition,  8vo,  gilt  top,  $1.75. 

CHIEF  CONTENTS.— I.  THE  TEXT- II.  THE  CANON— III.  THE 
SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM — IV.  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK — V.  THE 
GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW — VI.  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  LUKE 
— VII.  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN — VIII.  THE  ESCHATOLOGY 
OF  THE  GOSPELS — IX.  DOGMATIC  "  TENDENCIES"  IN  THE  GOSPELS  — X. 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  GOSPELS  ;  OR,  THE  HERMENEUTICS  OF 
THE  EVANGELISTS — XI.  THE  GOSPELS  AS  HISTORIES — XII.  CRITICISM 
AND  HISTORICAL  CHRISTIANITY. 

"A  strong  book,  and  well  worth  reading  by  any  one  who 
knows  or  does  not  know  the  recent  results  of  the  higher 
criticism. " — Christian  Union. 

"  The  work  of  a  scholar  who  has  made  himself  familiar  with 
the  most  important  recent  investigations,  and  who  appreciates 
the  nature  and  bearing  of  the  questions  at  issue.  .  .  Re- 
plete with  information  for  those  who  have  not  made  the 
subject  a  specialty,  and  executed  in  a  spirit  of  candor  and 
rational  inquiry." — GEO.  B.  STEVENS,  Professor  of  New-Testa- 
ment Criticism  in  Yale  University,  in  Yale  Review. 

"  It  is  not  excelled  in  attractiveness  by  any  work  that  has 
been  written  on  the  subject." — Prof.  C.  H.  TOY. 

"  A  book  of  rare  strength  and  poise.  .  .  Places  its  author 
in  the  front  rank  of  American  biblical  scholars." — The 
Unitarian. 

"  Scholarly  from  cover  to  cover,  and  a  decided  addition  to 
New-Testament  literature." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"  I  admire  its  careful  learning  and  thorough  mastery  of  the 
subject,  and  more  I  admire  the  singular  mental  poise  which  ii 
exhibits.  .  .  Such  a  book  marks  a  era  in  American  scholar- 
ship."— R.  HEBER  NEWTON,  D.D. 

"A  thoroughly  scholarly  work  ;  its  tone  is  deeply  reverent  and 
spiritual,  and  its  literary  style  is  marked  by  sobriety  and  con- 
spicious  refinement  and  grace.  ...  It  has  commanded 
throughout  our  close  attention  and  frequent  admiration." — The 
London  Literary  World. 

"  I  feel  very  great  admiration  for  the  scholarship  and 
wisdom  shown  in  the  treatment  of  the  whole  subject.  .  . 
The  book  is  admirable  and  cannot  fail  to  do  great  good 
among  thinking  men." — ANDREW  D.  WHITE. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


